Appeal No. 96-1753
Application 08/063,202
therefrom, the examiner has considered this limitation not to be
taught by Moore.
For this teaching the examiner turns to Ekdahl, which
discloses a package for containing and dispensing plastic
materials. Ekdahl teaches extruding materials from a package by
squeezing them through a nozzle so that they assume a
“decorative” form (page 1, line 21). It is our view that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to equip
the Moore device with an extrusion nozzle whose exit comprises a
design “for shaping” the first and second viscous materials as
they exit outlet 38, suggestion being found in Ekdahl’s explicit
teaching that such would provide a decorative extrusion. It is
our further view that it also would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to orient the design of the shaping
nozzle in such a fashion as not to compromise Moore’s objective
of dispensing a striped product.
The rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Moore
and Ekdahl is sustained. The rejections of apparatus claims 3
through 10, 12 through 14 and 22, based upon Moore in view of
Ekdahl, and claim 11, based upon Ekdahl in view of Moore, also
are sustained. In re Young, supra. With regard to claim 11, we
note that the appellants merely referred to the arguments set out
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007