Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
Claim 32:
Claim 32 depends from and further limits the breaking means of claim
31 to comprise an opening disposed in the container, wherein upon the
passing of the cosmetic article through the opening, the cosmetic article is
compressed to break the capsule(s).
We find that the combination of Bechmann and Beck fails to teach a
container that, upon the passing of the cosmetic article through the opening
of the container, the cosmetic article is compressed causing the capsule(s) to
break. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann and Beck.
Since claim 33 depends from claim 32, we reverse the rejection of claim 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Bechmann and Beck. Claim 34, provides a variation, wherein the means for
breaking the capsules comprises a compartment with a lid, wherein the
capsule(s) is broken by placing the article in the compartment and closing
the lid. Since the combination of Bechmann and Beck fails to teach this
arrangement of a compartment and lid for breaking the capsule(s), we
reverse the rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Bechmann and Beck.
The rejection of claims 52-114:
Claims 52-114 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher.
In view of the combined teachings of Bechmann, Beck and Gruenbacher the
Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013