Appeal No. 96-0661
Application 08/189,833
appeal is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references, and it has not been demonstrated by the examiner
that such subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the applied prior art
references, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of claims
4 and 8 through 18 before us on appeal is factually deficient
and will therefore not be sustained.3
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1, 5, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed, while the decision to reject claims 4 and 8 through
18 on the same statutory basis is reversed.
We note in particular that the examiner has, throughout the prosecution of this3
application, apparently not ever addressed the means to introduce jets of water as
recited in appellant’s claim 10 on appeal. As for the newly cited patents, if the
examiner is of the view that they in fact render obvious the claimed subject matter as
defined in claims 4 and 8 through 18 on appeal, then he should make the appropriate
rejections and provide an appropriate explanation of those rejections as set forth in
Sections 2141, 2142, 2143 and 2143.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007