Appeal No. 1998-1776
Application No. 08/515,438 Page 6
We are in agreement with the conclusion of the examiner with
respect to claims 11, 20, and 24 and thus we will sustain this
rejection.
Appellants argue, in regard to claim 11, that neither Kaplan
nor Koch describes, discloses or otherwise shows or suggests a
flexible boot containing a housing which is capable of containing
a wireless sound or video system. This argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the
actual scope of claim 11 which does not recite a housing capable
of containing a wireless sound or video system. In addition, as
we stated above, Kaplan discloses a housing or nozzle which is
capable of containing a wireless sound or video system. Further,
Koch also discloses a housing in a flexible boot which is capable
of containing a wireless sound or video system.
Appellants also argue, in regard to claims 19, 20, 21 and
22, that neither Kaplan nor Koch discloses or suggest a housing
built into the fuel dispensing nozzle itself. We initially note
that this rejection is not directed to claims 19, 21 and 22.
Further, we do not find this argument persuasive because it is
not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 20 which does not
recite a housing built into the fuel dispensing nozzle itself.
Rather, claim 19, from which claim 20 depends recites that the
hollow cavity contained in the housing is capable of containing a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007