Appeal 2006-2721
Application 09/579,938
assembly claimed as the dispensing means in claim 3 (id. 5 and 6). The
Examiner contends the term “paint” does not distinguish the apparatus of
each of the references which are described as used with beverages, finding
each apparatus “capable of holding and dispensing paint” (id. 4-5 and 5-6).
The Examiner contends “the term ‘paint’ includes liquids of similar
consistency to common beverages” and “may be in the same viscosity
ranges as beverages,” pointing to the disclosure of a “paint having a
viscosity of ‘7 centipoise’” in Moran and the disclosure “that milk, cream
and tomato juice have viscosities of 3.2, 16.5, and 176 centipoise
respectively” in Palmer (id. 5 and 6).
Appellant contends the claims are not anticipated by each of DeVito
and Briggs “since the storage compartments and dispensing mechanism for
paint are inherently different than those of beverage containers” (Br. 7-8).
Appellant contends “[a]s known to those skilled in the art, paint has a
consistency and viscosity and will not flow through just any size opening” as
“[p]aint, specifically house paint, is typically between 3,000-6,000
centipoise and sometimes upwards of 20,000 centipoise” and will not “flow
through a small opening that liquids like milk or even tomato juice could
flow through,” citing Curry (id. 8-10 and 10-12; see also Reply Br. 6).
Appellant contends the invention as claimed, including claim 1, includes
containers with particular shapes having “a spigot coupled to the base for
dispensing” paint, citing the Abstract of the Specification, and “dispensing
means . . . removeably [sic] coupled to the base,” citing page 2, lines 18-19,
of the Specification, which is not shown by DeVito and by Briggs (id. 8-10
and 10-13).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013