Ex parte LANDA et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1997-2118                                                        
          Application No. 08/119,163                                                  

               The obviousness rejection of claims 36, 39, 43, 45, 47,                
          49, 51 and 53 is reversed.                                                  
               According to the examiner (Answer, pages 4 and 5):                     
               [A]ll of the broadly claimed structure of the                          
               dispensing container, per se, is disclosed by the                      
               patent to Landa except for the use of a second valve                   
               in communication with the second space of the                          
               canister for allowing the ingress of pressurized                       
               fluid into said second space.  More specifically,                      
               the patent to Landa discloses the use of a rigid                       
               canister 70 (Fig. 2) for dispensing a material such                    
               as liquid toner wherein a movable partition 74 (Fig.                   
               2) disposed within said canister defines a first                       
               space (lower portion of canister) containing liquid                    
               toner concentrate and a second space (upper portion                    
               of canister) between the movable partition and the                     
               canister; and a first valve 92 (Fig. 2)                                
               communicating with the first space of the canister                     
               for allowing egress of said material or liquid from                    
               said first space when said first valve is activated.                   
          With the exception of valves positioned at opposite end                     
          portions of the canister, the examiner is of the opinion                    
          (Answer, pages                                                              
          5 and 6) that all of the claimed structure is disclosed by                  
               Based upon the teachings of Landa and Uhlig, the examiner              
          concludes (Answer, pages 8 through 11) that it would have                   
          been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simplify                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007