Appeal No. 1999-0955
Application No. 08/687,872
We REVERSE and enter a new rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
The claims on appeal are drawn to an apparatus for
dispensing an antiperspirant or deodorant composition and are
reproduced in the appendix of appellants’ brief (Paper No.
14).
The prior art applied in the final rejection is:
Berghahn et al. (Berghahn) 4,111,567 Sep. 05, 1978
Hall et al. (Hall) 249,473 Oct. 25, 1962
(Published Australian Appl.)
The additional reference of record relied on by this
merits panel is:
de Laforcade et al.3 5,567,073 Oct. 22, 1996
(de Laforcade) (filed Nov. 28, 1994)
Claims 16, 19 and 21 through 29 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall in view of
Berghahn.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
Cited by appellants in an “Information Disclosure Citation” filed3
April 21, 1997. See Paper No. 4.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007