Appeal No. 97-2244
Application 07/986,521
USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962). In short, the relevant disclosure in
the Fink reference is too ambiguous to support a finding that the
elements disposed within the circular housing 56 embody an
adapter which in combination with the nozzle body defines
portions of the vapor return passageway means leading to the
vapor valve and from the vapor valve to an entrance to the vapor
return passageway means in the hand grip portion as recited in
claim 51. Indeed and to the contrary, the little relevant
disclosure that Fink does make would seem to indicate that the
nozzle has no such “adapter.” In this light, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent
claim 51, or of claims 28 and 29 which depend therefrom, as being
anticipated by Fink.
In addition to not teaching a nozzle having an adapter as
recited in claim 51, Fink would not have suggested such a nozzle
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since Monticup, cited by
the examiner for its disclosure of a fuel nozzle having a spout-
mounting breakaway nut means, does not cure these deficiencies in
Fink, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 31 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of
Monticup.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007