Appeal No. 2005-0944
Application No. 09/941,377
We reverse as to claims 1 and 2 but affirm as to claims 3
through 14 and 16 through 20.2
Cox, the principal prior art reference, describes a
pressurized dispensing container containing a composition
comprising a resin for forming a cohesive body of plastic foam,
a surfactant for providing a surface of controlled tackiness on
the foam, and a propellant in which the resin and the surfactant
are soluble for propelling the composition from the container
and for subsequent expansion to form the foam. (Column 1, lines
19-27.) Cox further teaches that “[a]s the composition is
expelled, it remains in the form of a thin string...” (Column
2, lines 48-53.) Cox also teaches that “if desired perfumes[3]
2 With respect to the rejection based on Cox and Konietzki,
the appellants state that the claims should be considered
separately in two groups as follows: (I) claims 1, 2, and 11;
and (II) claims 3-6, 12-14, and 16-20. (Appeal brief filed on
Jun. 7, 2004 at 4.) For reasons discussed more fully below, we
will consider claims 1, 2, and 11 individually. As to Group II,
we select claim 3 as representative and confine our discussion
to this representative claim. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003)
(effective Apr. 21, 1995). With respect to the rejection based
on Cox, Konietzki, and Easley, the appellants state that claims
7-10 stand or fall together. (Appeal brief at 4.) We select
claim 9 as representative and confine our discussion to this
representative claim.
[3] With respect to the definition of the term “perfume,”
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 863 (10th ed., 1996),
copy attached, includes the following: “a substance that emits a
pleasant odor; esp: a fluid preparation of natural essences (as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007