Appeal No. 97-2906
Application 08/367,837
According to the examiner (answer, pages 3-4),
Asbeck “shows all of the basic spray head including a spray gun,
passages 69 and 70, discharge orifice 136, trigger 40, valve
needle 50, and valve 80 in spray head upstream of the surface
(column 5, lines 57-65).” The only feature of claim 1 on appeal
the examiner sees as lacking in Asbeck is that the spray head
therein (apparently that portion of the barrel (11) of the spray
gun body from and including the extension (67) up to the
discharge orifice (136)) is not detachably mounted on the spray
gun body. To overcome this difference, the examiner points to
the spray head (15) of Grime which is detachably mounted on the
spray gun body (11) therein. From these teachings the examiner
concludes (answer, page 4) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the spray gun of
Asbeck . . . to have a detachably
mounted spray head as taught by Grime.
Appellants urge that the examiner’s modification of
Asbeck in view of Grime is made only with hindsight after
considering appellants’ invention. We tend to agree. Moreover,
even if the spray gun of Asbeck were to be modified to have the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007