Appeal No. 2000-1292 Page 5
Application No. 08/739,836
uses “a liquified gas propellant or a compressed gas propellant, or mixture of them” to
propel the product from the dispenser (column 4, lines 3 and 4), as the basis for concluding
that Diamond teaches using a mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide gases to propel the
product from the spray dispenser (Answer, page 3). In our view, this conclusion is
misplaced. From our perspective, the phrase “or mixture of them” should be interpreted to
mean a mixture of liquified and pressurized gas propellents, and not a mixture of several
gas propellants. We arrive at this understanding because Diamond earlier states that
aerosol spray dispensers “use various liquified and compressed gas propellants” (column
2, line 27, emphasis added), and while in the subsequent explanation of the invention there
is reference to compressed gases and liquified gases, and mixtures of compressed
gases and liquified gases, there is no explicit mention of mixtures of several gases nor, in
our view, is there any reason from a consideration of the disclosure as a whole to conclude
that such was contemplated. It therefore is our conclusion that Diamond would not have
taught one of ordinary skill in the art to propel material from a spray dispenser by means of
a mixture of several gases.
Ebisawa is directed to solving problems associated with dispensing alcohol-based
products from spray dispensers. In this regard, the reference teaches that advantages are
gained in using gases that are hard to dissolve in alcohol, such as a mixture of nitrogen
and carbon dioxide (translation, pages 1 and 3). However, no mention is made of using
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007