Appeal No. 1997-2118
Application No. 08/119,163
OPINION
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
Uhlig.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007