Appeal No. 97-2906
Application 08/367,837
barrel portion of the spray gun from the extension (67) to the
discharge orifice (136) made detachable from the remainder of the
spray gun body, the resulting structure would not be the same as
that set
forth in appellants’ claim 1 on appeal. Modifying Asbeck so as
to have the valves (80) in the detachable spray head, as urged by
the examiner, would also result in the passages (69, 70) being in
the detachable spray head, thereby creating a spray head which is
not for use with a spray gun having “passages in a spray gun body
for delivering fluid and pressurized air to said spray head”
(emphasis added), as set forth in appellants’ claim 1 on appeal.
The resulting spray head in the examiner’s modification of Asbeck
would be a spray head wherein the fluid inlet passage thereof is
not intended or adapted to receive fluid “from a passage in the
spray gun body and to deliver such fluid to said fluid discharge
orifice,” as required in the spray head of appellants’ claim 1.
For these reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner's rejection under § 103 of claims 2
through 6, which depend from claim 1, will likewise not be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007