Appeal No. 2000-1292 Page 2
Application No. 08/739,836
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a spray device system. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in an
appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Diamond et al. (Diamond) 5,211,317 May 18, 1993
Brazilian Patent Publication 7,808,500 Apr. 24, 1979
(Reis)
Japanese Unexamined Application 2-53886 Feb. 22, 1988
(Ebisawa)
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Diamond in view of Reis and Ebisawa.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 23) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 22) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
2Our understanding of the two foreign language references was obtained from PTO
translations, copies of which are enclosed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007