Appeal No. 1998-2927 Page 4
Application No. 07/584,667
The examiner's rationale for the above-noted rejection is
set forth on pages 3-4 of the answer (Paper No. 39, mailed
December 10, 1997) which we reproduce below:
Prentis teaches an apparatus comprised of a water
reservoir divided into 2 or more independent compartments
using one or more partitions with the moistening member
located in each of the components [sic, compartments] to
individually supply water to the moistening member.
Prentis teaches the moistening member has a projecting
part which is used to moisten objects with water from the
reservoir and is supported in the reservoir on shaft B
(see column 2 sixth paragraph [sic, column 1 fifth
paragraph]). The recitations of the end use of the
apparatus for moistening enveloped slaps [sic, flaps]
does not structurally further limit the apparatus claim
since Prentis teaches each of the elements of the
moistening system as set forth in claims 1-2. With
respect to claim 3, Prentis has a [sic, an] upper surface
closed by a lid. Prentis fails to teach the moistening
member passes through the cover [lid]. However, it would
have been an obvious expedient to the skilled artisan to
make the Prentis moistening member protrude through the
apertures in [the] lid in order to make the moistening
member more accessible for wetting objects especially in
view of Krueger which discloses an apparatus for
moistening objects comprising a reservoir an [sic, and] a
moistening member which passes through an opening in the
cover of the reservoir. With respect to claim 4, the
sponge shaft shown in Figure 4 of Prentis constitute
[sic, constitutes] a "flat holder" which fixes the
moistening member to the reservoir.
The complete statement of the appellants' argument
against the rejection can be found on pages 3-9 of the brief
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007