Appeal 2006-2721
Application 09/579,938
the claim term “paint” is not limited to “house paint,” and contends Reed’s
apparatus is capable of dispensing paint (id. 20-21). The Examiner contends
Appellant has not addressed whether making the dispensing mechanism
removable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (id.
22). Appellant replies that the dispensing mechanism is removable in the
claimed apparatus “to allow easier cleaning after use,” pointing out that paint
storage devices are generally difficult to clean (Reply Br. 7-8).
With respect to the ground of rejection of dependent claims 21 and 28
under § 103(a) over Reed and Briggs, Appellant relies on the arguments
advanced with respect to the rejection of independent claims 16 and 22
under § 103(a) over Reed (Br. 19).
The principle issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has
established a prima facie case with respect to each ground of rejection, and
the underling issues include the interpretation of the claim terms “paint” and
“storage” and whether the apparatus of the respective references are capable
of storing and dispensing paint.
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a paint storage container apparatus
comprising at least the specified components, including “means for
dispensing removeably [sic] coupled to the base of the paint storage
compartments for dispensing paint . . . without lifting the paint
compartments.” Claim 5 specifies the paint storage container of claim 1
further comprising at least, inter alia, “means for stirring removeably [sic]
coupled to the lids for stirring the paint stored in the paint storage
compartments.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013