Appeal No. 2005-0335 Page 3
Application No. 09/569,645
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
declaration of Jeffrey W. Walker filed June 30, 2003 and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The AAPA, as described in the last paragraph on page 1 of appellants’
specification is as follows:
Liquid solvent activator has been applied to ink
images in dip transfer printing with hand held sprayers and
with spray nozzles carried on a bar which extends across the
top of a dipping tank. The bar carrying the spray nozzles
travels back and forth along the length of the bath. The bar
is carried on wheels at each end of the bar. The wheels ride
along both sides of the bath on tracks. The wheels of such
an applicator sometimes bind and slow or even stop the
applicator. As a result, the applicator applies liquid activator
nonuniformly and the resulting coating is nonuniform.
The AAPA lacks a cantilever comprising a mounting member and a projecting
member extending from the mounting member to a distal end, with an activator sprayer
mounted to the projecting member, as called for in independent claims 1 and 19. To
overcome this deficiency, the examiner relies on the additional teachings of Hurst,
which discloses a touch-free car wash comprising an L-shaped spray manifold 37
attached to a carriage movable along a track 24 that surrounds a portion of the
periphery of the car, so that the spray manifold borne by the carriage projects spray
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007