Appeal No. 98-2417
Application 08/570,894
within which a product, article, prize, or object "may be
removably contained." The recitation in claim 1 with respect
to the apparatus being "for containing a removable liquid and
a removable product, article, prize, or object," is merely a
statement of purpose or intended use and is thus not effective
to distinguish appellant's claimed apparatus/container from
that of Rudick. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181
USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1074); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152
USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); and In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492,
135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). For the above reasons, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on appeal will be sustained.
As to claim 2, we observe that when the closure means
(13) is removed from the opening of the second compartment
(14) in Rudick Figure 1, the second enclosure, at least in the
area above the rolling diaphragm (18), will have "unobstructed
communication with an atmosphere exterior to said apparatus
without necessarily requiring opening of said liquid
dispensing opening." In this regard, we note that claim 2
does not necessarily require that the entirety of the second
enclosure must have "unobstructed communication with an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007