Appeal No. 1999-2182 Page 2
Application No. 08/710,704
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a dispensing system. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Grothoff 4,750,532 Jun. 14, 1988
ENGLASS Dispensing & Packaging Systems brochure, ENGLASS HVDS dispensers,
Jan. 4, 1993 (ENGLASS)
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
ENGLASS in view of Grothoff.
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. 18) and the final rejection (Paper No. 8) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) 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 claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007