Appeal No. 1998-3309 2
Application No. 08/618,306
The claims on appeal are drawn to an applicator for a
product of a viscous consistency and are reproduced in the
appendix of appellant’s main brief (Paper No. 16).1
The prior art applied in the final rejection is:
Jakubowski 2,917,765 Dec. 22, 1959
Berghahn et al. (Berghahn) 4,111,567 Sep. 5, 1978
Citterio 4,801,052 Jan. 31, 1989
Lathrop et al. (Lathrop) 5,073,057 Dec. 17, 1991
Hall et al. (Hall) 249,473 Oct. 25, 1962
(Published Australian Patent Application)
The appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) on the following grounds:
claims 3, 5 through 10 and 15, unpatentable over Hall in
view of Berghahn and Lathrop; and
claims 16 and 17, unpatentable over Hall in view of
Berghahn, Lathrop, Jakubowski and Citterio.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s main and reply briefs and the
examiner’s answer, we conclude that the appealed claims are
patentable over the applied prior art, for at least the
following reasons.
1Claim 15, as reproduced in the appendix, contains a
typographical error. On page ii, line 3, “capillary action
prevented” should read --capillary action is prevented--.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007