Appeal No. 2005-0538
Application No. 09/815,030
First, we note that the flexible body member 12 is
“preferably” constructed of a non-absorbent, non-porous
material, and thus this is a preferred embodiment. As
such, Floyd does not exclude an embodiment that uses
absorbent material for member 12.
Also, as discussed above, appellant’s claimed
“absorbent member” encompasses a member having multiple
parts, wherein at least one part is made of an absorbent
material. As such, we agree with the examiner that the
scent dispenser depicted in Figure 6 of Floyd anticipates
appellant’s claim 1.1
In regard to the claimed recitation of “each leg being
adapted to be individually inserted into the scent
container”, on page 3 of the reply brief, appellant states
he cannot understand the examiner’s reasoning as to how the
interconnecting legs or straps 142 of Floyd can be inserted
into a scent container in this manner. Appellant argues
that it is not possible to insert each leg 142 into a scent
container individually because the interconnecting strap 12
blocks the lower end of the strap 142. We disagree because
it is not impossible that each leg 142 can be individually
inserted into the scent container. That is, each strap 142
can be placed inside a scent container (e.g., bunched
inside a container), one at a time, hence, individually.
Therefore, we are not convinced by appellant’s argument on
this issue.
1 On page 2 of the Office action of Paper No. 6, the examiner finds
that Floyd discloses a scent dispenser having an elongated member 12
and an aperture, and having a pair of legs 142, as depicted in Figure
6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007