Appeal No. 97-2736
Application 08/067,221
disclosure and not from any fair teaching or suggestion found
in the applied Pritchard patent. Absent the disclosure of the
present application, it is our opinion that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the
aerosol apparatus of Pritchard in the manner urged by the
examiner so as to arrive at the subject matter set forth in
appellants’ independent claim 1 on appeal. Thus, the
examiner's rejection of appellants’ claims 1 through 4 and 7
through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Pritchard will not be
sustained.
We have also reviewed the patent to Lankinen applied by
the examiner in the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 5 and
6. However, we find nothing in this reference which would
supply that which we have noted above to be lacking in the
basic reference to Pritchard. Accordingly, the examiner's
rejection of claims 5 and 6 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will likewise not be sustained.
As should be apparent from the foregoing, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 9 of the present
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007