Appeal No. 2000-1856 Page 2
Application No. 08/527,671
dispenser. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in
the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art
references of record in rejecting the appealed claims:
Acton et al. (Acton) 3,466,731 Sep. 16,
1969
Reid et al. (Reid) 3,840,966 Oct. 15,
1974
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 5,038,464 Aug. 13,
1991
Appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) on pages 2-4 of the
specification.
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 38-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Suzuki and either
Acton or Reid.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 23) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 22 and 24) for
the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007