Appeal No. 2004-1087
Application No. 09/223,472
At the top of page 9 of the brief, appellants conclude therefore
that Norris does not disclose an outlet that, when viewed from
the right, is at an angle other than normal to the surface.
Beginning on page 8 of the answer, the examiner responds
and states that the word “normal” means “perpendicular”. The
examiner states that as stated by the appellants, the outlets of
Norris are parallel to the plate electrodes. The examiner
states that this observation is therefore consistent with the
examiner’s interpretation of Norris. The examiner states that
if the nozzles are parallel to the plate electrodes, then they
are clearly at an angle, in this case, a right angle (which is
other than perpendicular (normal)) to the surface of the plate
electrodes.
On page 5 of the answer, the examiner recognizes that
Figure 3, which is a view from the right, does not show the
nozzles because they are on the opposite side of vertical tube.
The examiner states that if the nozzles were visible, for
example, if the tube were transparent, the nozzles would be seen
to point down, as shown in Figure 4. We agree. We further find
that Norris teaches in column 4, beginning at line 40, that the
nozzles can work at a wide range of angles and that by having
the nozzles at a slightly different angle provides for better
circulation of the solution. Hence, a variety of angles are
disclosed which would provide for not only a parallel
arrangement, but for a variety of angles other than normal to
the surface.
We, therefore, are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments,
and affirm the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007