Appeal No. 97-1810 Page 11
Application No. 08/321,262
We have reviewed the applied prior art but find nothing
therein which would have suggested the subject matter of claim
24. Specifically, there is no teaching or suggestion of
utilizing an adhesive for attaching the wall 12 of Munoz Saiz
across the opening to his container 11. Since all the
limitations of claim 24 are not suggested or taught by the
applied prior art, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 22, 23 and 26 to 30 under 35 U.S.C. §
103
We sustain the rejection of claims 22, 23, 26 and 28
through 30, but not the rejection of claim 27.
Claim 22
Dependent claim 22 adds to parent claim 21 the limitation
that the apparatus further includes a hermetic package
enclosing the brush portion and the handle portion and that
the package includes means for facilitating manually tearing
open the package.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007