Appeal No. 2005-0538
Application No. 09/815,030
with the aperture therethrough and a pair of legs
attached to the first portion, the legs having a gap
therebetween, each leg being adapted to be
individually inserted into the scent container, with
the rim of the scent container entering the gap.
The examiner relies upon the following reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Floyd 4,722,477 Feb. 2, 1988
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Floyd.
OPINION
The examiner’s position for the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 is set forth on page 2 the Office action of Paper No. 6
(mailed October 16, 2002). We refer to the examiner’s position
therein.
Beginning on page 3 of the brief, appellant argues that the
absorbent member 14 shown in Figure 6 of Floyd does not have a
pair of legs. Appellant also argues that the straps 142 are not
disclosed as being absorbent in Floyd, and therefore the straps
142 cannot be part of the claimed absorbent member.
Appellant’s absorbent member is depicted as item 12 in
Figure 1, comprising an elongate member 16 having a first
portion 18 with an aperture 14, and a pair of legs 20,22
attached to the first portion 18. The legs 20,22 have a gap 24
therebetween. See also page 4 of appellant’s specification.
We note that during patent examination, the pending claims
must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 320, 322 (Fed. Cir.
1999). In the instant case, appellant argues that the claimed
absorbent member must be entirely made of absorbent material.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007