Appeal No. 2001-1360
Application 09/290,056
furnish Itzel’s spray device with such a fan unit. Thus, the 1
appellant’s position that the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 21 and 22 as being unpatentable over Itzel in view of
Junkel is unsound due to a lack of suggestion to combine these
references is not persuasive.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
The following new grounds of rejection are entered
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 8 through 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants regard
as the invention.
Claims 8 through 12 and 16 depend, either directly or
indirectly, from claim 1 which, as indicated above, recites the
securing means for attaching the spray head to the open neck of
1It seems to us that the combined teachings of the
references also would have suggested providing Junkel’s spray
misting device with a second port of the type recited in the
claims in view of Itzel to facilitate filling the device. In
this regard, where a rejection is predicated on two references
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed
out to the applicant, it is of no significance, but merely a
matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A
in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one
reference primary and the other secondary. In re Bush, 296
F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007