Appeal No. 2005-1159 Page 2
Application No. 09/760,189
of fluid within the dispenser (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal
is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Applied Prior Art
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Sperry et al. (Sperry ‘847) 5,255,847 Oct. 26, 1993
Sperry et al. (Sperry ‘848) 5,996,848 Dec. 7, 1999
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sperry ‘848.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sperry ‘848.1
Claims 10, 11 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sperry ‘847 in view of Sperry ‘848.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed January 4, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
1 Although this rejection was not explicitly repeated in the examiner’s answer, we presume that
this rejection is maintained and that the examiner inadvertently omitted it because the appellants did not
argue this rejection separately from the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007