Appeal No. 97-2244
Application 07/986,521
It is not disputed that Fink discloses a vapor recovery,
automatic shut off, fuel dispensing nozzle comprising, inter
alia, a nozzle body having a hand grip portion, a spout, vapor
return passageway means extending between an inlet end of the
nozzle body through the hand grip portion to a discharge end of
the spout, and a vapor valve interposed in the vapor return
passageway means. The appellants do contend, however, that
Fink’s nozzle does not include an adapter as recited in claim 51.
The examiner submits, on the other hand, that the structure
disposed within the circular housing 56 of Fink’s nozzle
constitutes such an adapter and refers to the Fink specification
at column 4, lines 35 through 49 for a discussion of vapor flow
through the nozzle.
Fink’s disclosure of the portions of the vapor return
passageway means leading to vapor valve 140 and from this valve
to the entrance of the vapor return passageway means in the hand
grip portion is very short on detail and reasonably can be
characterized as being sketchy and ambiguous. It is well
established that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated
on an ambiguous reference. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899, 134
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007