Appeal No. 1999-0955
Application No. 08/687,872
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15) for
the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Independent claim 16 calls for an “[a]pparatus for
dispensing an antiperspirant or deodorant composition having a
viscosity of about 12,000 to 50,000 cP . . . comprising: a
container having . . . a container opening . . . said
container opening at least partially filled with said
composition, a transport mechanism . . . for transporting at
least a portion of said composition . . . and a rigid, non-
deformable, sintered polyolefin porous dome . . . having an
externally disposed upper surface with a smooth rounded
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007