Appeal No. 2005-0944
Application No. 09/941,377
It is our judgment, therefore, that Cox describes, either
expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of appealed
claim 3.
With respect to appealed claim 11, Cox teaches that the
foam string may be propelled 6 inches or more from the nozzle of
the container, which can provide more than 0.5 mile of string.
(Column 2, lines 25-39.) Thus, it would reasonably appear that
Cox’s apparatus would have the same characteristic recited in
appealed claim 11.
With respect to appealed claim 9, we have already pointed
out that Cox teaches the use of perfumes. Thus, the limitation
recited in appealed claim 9 is of no help to the appellants.4
We have considered all of the arguments set forth in the
appeal brief and reply brief filed on Sep. 23, 2004 but do not
find any of them germane to the apparatus claims.
In summary, we reverse the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over
Cox in view of Konietzki. We affirm, however, the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: (i) appealed claims 3 through 6, 11
through 14, and 16 through 20 as unpatentable over Cox in view
4 We need not discuss the teachings of Easley because they
are unnecessary to support the rejection of appealed claim 9.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007