Appeal No. 1998-3309 7
Application No. 08/618,306
known substitution of equivalents.” Id. at p. 4. In addition,3
the examiner described Berghahn as teaching both the use and
non-use of a metering element 34 and determined that it would
have been obvious to eliminate the apertured member 16 of Hall
in view of this teaching in Berghahn. Lathrop is cited for its
disclosure of “pressurizing the container to dispense the
contents.” Id.4
We do not consider that it would have been obvious to
combine Hall with Berghahn and Lathrop as proposed by the
examiner. Hall is concerned with a dispenser for applying
cleaning fluid or polish in the form of wax or liquid to shoes.
To this end, Hall provides a container having a flexible,
compressible, opened-cell foam polyurethane applicator pad
mounted in the cap for the container. Berghahn and Lathrop both
disclose liquid applicators for applying antiperspirant or
deodorant to human skin. Assuming arguendo that it was known in
3For a teaching of the equivalency of the flexible
polyurethane pad of Hall with the rigid, sintered applicator
of Berghahn, the examiner refers to column 5, line 8 et seq.
of Berghahn which describes a patent to Gazzani as containing
a suggestion that the porous, flexible, deformable applicator
pad disclosed therein could be porous and rigid.
4It is unclear why the examiner cited Lathrop for this
teaching, since Hall teaches ejecting the product in the
container by piston 13, threaded stem 12 and knob 14.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007