Appeal No. 97-1810 Page 9
Application No. 08/321,262
opening for subsequent manual unsealing" is not met since the
seal 12 in Munoz Saiz does not appear to be manually
removable. We find this argument to be unpersuasive for the
following reasons. First, claim 21 does not require the
sealing means to be manually removable. Claim 21 only
requires the sealing means to be manually unsealed. Second,
as pointed out above, Munoz Saiz specifically teaches that the
wall 12 can be either pushed through or removed by pushing the
slanted end 7 into the handle 2. Lastly, it is our opinion
that the pushing of the brush head body into the handle to
either push through or remove the wall is manually unsealing
the opening to the chamber. In that regard, it quite apparent
to us that the pushing of the brush head body into the handle
is done manually (i.e., by the hands of a person) and the
result is the unsealing of the chamber.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007