Appeal 2006-2721
Application 09/579,938
The Examiner replies contends “none of the claims requires a
capability to dispense ‘house’ paint” and “[a] capability to dispense a paint
which is not ‘house’ paint would satisfy the claim limitations” (Answer
14-16 and 17-19). The Examiner contends Appellant has not supported the
contention “paint will not flow through just any size opening” with respect
to DeVito and Briggs (id.). The Examiner contends the nozzle assembly of
the apparatus of each of DeVito and Briggs are removably coupled to the
base of the container (id. 17 and 19). Appellant replies the apparatus of each
of DeVito and Briggs serve drinks and do not store and dispense paint
(Reply Br. 6-7).
With respect to the ground of rejection under § 102(b) over Corbin,
the Examiner contends Corbin discloses a paint storage container apparatus
with compartments having a dispensing mechanism removably coupled to
the base of the compartments capable of dispensing paint without lifting a
compartment (Answer 6-7). The Examiner contends Corbin describes the
compartments as “storage reservoirs” (id. 19). Appellant contends Corbin
discloses paint in temporary storage reservoirs for mixing and not in storage
“to be used at a later date” (Br. 13; Reply Br. 7).
With respect to the ground of rejection under § 103(a) over Reed, the
Examiner contends Reed would have disclosed a beverage dispensing
apparatus with compartments that have a dispensing mechanism coupled to
the base and are covered with lids which have a coupled stirring assembly
that includes a fan (Answer 7-13). The Examiner contends that while Reed
does not expressly state that the dispensing mechanism and the stirring
assembly is removable as specified for the claimed apparatus encompassed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013