Appeal No. 96-1596
Application No. 08/106,489
unpersuasive for the following reason. As set forth above, Stull
does disclose each and every limitation recited in claim 1. In
that regard, contrary to the appellant's argument, Stull does
disclose an intermediate portion located between the blade
portion and the engagement portion of his dispensing cap.
Furthermore, Stull's sloping wall 27 and the portion of Stull's
blade 34 which forms a part of the orifice portion 26 (as shown
in Figures 3 and 4) oppose each other and are angled towards each
other. Additionally, in our view, the intermediate and
engagement portions together (i.e., all of Stull's dispensing cap
except for that part of blade 34 shown in Figure 1) define a
handle for supporting the blade portion.
For the reasons presented above, we sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The appellant has grouped claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 as standing
or falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR2
§ 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 7 and 8 fall with claim 1. Thus, it
follows that the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also sustained.
2See page 4 of the appellant's brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007