Appeal No. 1997-2118
Application No. 08/119,163
I note that Landa teaches in column 2, lines 43 through
44, that the preferred embodiment of the invention is to
include a replaceable enclosure which is the container 66
shown in Figure 2. Landa further teaches that container 66 is
replaced by a fully charged container in column 6, lines 67
and 68. Thus, the Landa container 66 is a disposable item.
Uhlig teaches in column 1, lines 36 through 40 that one of the
problems of prior art throw away dispensers is that it creates
an additional economic problem of garbage or trash disposal.
Uhlig further teaches that the cost of the dispenser structure
is high when the dispenser includes sophisticated type
designs. I note that Landa's dispenser structure is a
sophisticated design wherein the throw away dispenser is a
metal container including the mechanical pressure means.
Uhlig teaches in column 1, lines 58 through 63, that their
invention provides an inexpensive flexible bag to hold the
dispensing product. After the product is dispensed, the inner
bag may be easily disposed of and replaced. Uhlig teaches
that their invention provides ecological advantages since only
the inner bag has to be thrown away. From these teachings, I
would have found that one of ordinary skill in the art would
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007