Appeal No. 96-1596
Application No. 08/106,489
With regard to claim 4, we agree with the examiner that
claim 4 "reads on" Stull. In that regard, we note that the
curved wall forming part of the orifice portion 26 includes
opposing side walls which extend between Stull's sloping wall 27
(i.e., the front face) and the portion of Stull's blade 34 which
forms another part (i.e., the rear face) of the orifice portion
26. With regard to claim 5, we agree with the examiner that
claim 5 "reads on" Stull. In that regard, we note that Stull's
sloping wall 27 (i.e., the front face) is substantially planar.
In addition, the portion of Stull's blade 34 which forms a part
(i.e., the rear face) of the orifice portion 26 is substantially
planar. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) since each and every
element set forth in these claims is found in Stull.
We agree with the appellant that claims 6, 9 through 11 and
13 through 17 do not "read on" Stull. In that regard, Stull does
not disclose a concave recess as recited in claims 6, 9 and 17.
We fail to find any disclosure in Stull that the juncture of the
surfaces of elements 16 and 11 forms a concave recess as alleged
by the examiner (answer, p. 4). Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9 through 11 and 13 through
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007