Appeal No. 97-1226 Page 3
Application No. 08/288,479
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a insulated spray
bottle. An understanding of the invention can be derived from
a reading of appealed claim 1, which appears in the appendix
to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Diamond et al. 4,932,563 June
12, 1990
(Diamond)
Davis 4,972,973 Nov. 27,
1990
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davis in view of Diamond.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed August 2, 1996) and the examiner's response to
the edited reply brief (Paper No. 20, mailed February 6, 1998)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007