Appeal No. 98-0393
Application No. 08/450,271
1016, 1018-19 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1996).
Appealed claims 9-11, 13-17, 19 20 and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Koffron. In
addition, claims 9-11, 13-17, 19, 20 and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koffron.
Claims 12 and 18 stand rejected under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Koffron in view of the admitted prior art
found in appellant's specification.
We have carefully reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we fully concur with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over
the Koffron reference. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 9-
11, 13-17 and 19-22 under § 102 over Koffron. As in the
Board's opinion in the grandparent application, we find that
all material elements of the rejected claims are described by
Koffron. Specifically, it is our view that Koffron fairly
describes the claimed steps of opening the discharge nozzle,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007