Appeal No. 97-1226 Page 4
Application No. 08/288,479
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed
July 15, 1996) and the edited reply brief (part of Paper No.
17, filed January 15, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 1. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
Claim 1 recites a spray bottle comprising, inter alia,
(1) a hand operated spray mechanism including a straw and an
orifice, (2) a container having a threaded opening, and (3) an
insulator substantially conformably enclosing the container.
Davis relates to insulated containers which may be used
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007