Appeal No. 97-1226 Page 9
Application No. 08/288,479
implicitly disclose discharge orifices which enable the
contents of their containers (i.e., Davis' inner vessel 2 and
Diamond's second container 20) to be discharged. In addition,
it is our determination that Figure 1 of Diamond shows such an
orifice. Furthermore, the appellant has admitted that the
standard spray bottle (shown in the appellant's Figure 1 and
described on pages 1-2 of the appellant's specification)
includes an orifice 60 in the spray mechanism 54.
Second, the appellant argues in the brief that Davis'
insulator (i.e., jacket 4) does not substantially conformably
enclose the container (i.e., inner vessel 2 of Davis). We do
not agree. It is our determination that the jacket 4 of Davis
does substantially conformably enclose the inner vessel 2. We
reach this determination based upon (1) Davis' teaching
(column 2, lines 48-50) that it is preferred that the jacket 4
fit the inner vessel 2 snugly in the manner shown in Figure 1,
and
(2) Davis' teaching (column 2, lines 38-43) that the jacket 4
can be formed integrally around the inner vessel 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007