Appeal No. 1999-0953
Application No. 08/576,618
to squeeze the container. Based on the disparate manners in
which the applicators of Murphy and Laauwe operate in both
dispensing and cutting off the flow of product, there is no
apparent reason, or need, for incorporating the weakened
portion of Laauwe into Murphy, as proposed by the examiner.
We therefore will not support the examiner’s alternative
theory of obviousness.
The additional references cited by the examiner against
the claims have been considered but do not make up for the
deficiencies of Murphy and Laauwe discussed above. Bihler is
directed to a valve type closure, operates in a manner similar
to Laauwe, and is no more pertinent then Laauwe. Jakubowski
and Clark disclose slot-like dispensing openings and slit-like
dispensing openings, respectively, but are not otherwise
pertinent to the obviousness issue at hand. The relevance of
Lathrop is not understood.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-13 that depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over the applied references.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007