Appeal No. 98-1032
Application 08/620,658
the independent claims from which they respectively depend
precludes the reservoir portion and/or the water absorbent
body that constitute the dispenser from being made of a
plurality of elements. Accordingly, claims 21-23 do not
patentably distinguish over Monnet since the Figures 3-4
device thereof may be considered to “consist of” only a
reservoir portion 2 and a water absorbent body 1, with the
reservoir portion 2 comprising a cap element 2 and a pair of
retractable plates for covering the opening in the cap
element. We therefore will also sustain the § 103 rejection
of claims 21-23.
Turning to claim 19, the examiner considers that
"dehydrated sponges are old and conventional" and that "the
use of a dehydrated sponge provides no patentable moment"
(answer, page 5). Even if we were to accept the examiner's
above quoted position, the examiner has not even addressed the
additional securing means limitation found in the last 4 lines
of claim 19. Accordingly, we do not consider that the
examiner has satisfied his initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 19. On
this basis alone, we cannot sustain the examiner's § 103
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007