Appeal No. 1998-1776
Application No. 08/515,438 Page 7
sound and/or video system. This requirement of claim 19 is met
by Kaplan (see Fig. 1 at 113) and Koch (see elements 300 and/or
400 in Figs. 13 and 14).
In regard to claim 24, the appellants argue that neither
Kaplan nor Koch discloses a flexible boot for a fuel dispensing
nozzle having a housing in which there can be housed a wireless
sound or video system. This argument is not persuasive because
it is not commensurate in scope with the actual scope of claim
24. Claim 24 recites a housing for containing a system not a
housing in combination with a system.
In regard to claim 23, appellants argue that neither Kaplan
nor Koch discloses or suggest a flexible boot for a fuel
dispensing nozzle having a housing in which there is housed a
wireless sound or video system. We agree with the appellants
that neither Kaplan nor Koch discloses a wireless sound or video
system in the flexible boot of a fuel dispensing nozzle.
Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection as it is
directed to claim 23.
In summary,
(1) the examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Koch is sustained.
(2) the examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kaplan is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007