Appeal No. 96-1883
Application 08/078,380
does not apply to its teachings. This is important for, as we
explained above, while Whelan does not teach a flexible working
surface, it does teach any outlets that are not circular and that
eject air at an angle to the working surface, as well as an
angular, non-linear stepped path for the fluid, and these are the
distinctions which the appellants urge are not present in the
prior art.
The rejection of claims 28 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is sustained.
We have, of course, carefully considered all of the
arguments raised by the appellants. However, they have not
convinced us that the examiner’s decision with regard to the
rejections which we have sustained were in error. Our position
with respect to each of the appellants’ arguments should be
apparent from the foregoing discussions.
Summary
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is not
sustained.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
not sustained.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is sustained.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007