Appeal No. 98-0956
Application 08/385,331
containing within said nozzle a means for generating a spreading sheet of liquid upon flow
of liquid through said spray nozzle” (emphasis added). Concerning this limitation, the
examiner argues that Sokolov discloses “sheet generating means/nozzle (1, 2, 6)”
3
(answer, page 4) , and that “elements 6 and 1 of . . . [Sokolov] are readable as the claimed
‘nozzle’” (final rejection, page 6). This argument is not well taken.
In brief, we agree with appellant’s argument (brief, pages 21 and 22) that liquid
supply tube 6 and rotatably driven spray plate 1 of Sokolov are separate elements that
cannot reasonably be considered to be parts of one nozzle such that Sokolov’s apparatus
could be regarded as having a single spray nozzle containing within the nozzle means for
generating a spreading sheet of liquid, as now claimed. In short, the examiner’s position
that elements 6 and 1 of Sokolov satisfy the single spray nozzle requirement of paragraph
(a) of claim 19 is simply not reasonable. It follows that we will not sustain this rejection.
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 to 8, 10 to 17, and 19 to 23 as being
unpatentable over Sokolov in view of Simmons, independent claim 1 is directed to an
apparatus comprising means for generating a spreading sheet of liquid comprising stream
3 In response to an argument presented in the reply brief, it appears that the
examiner has made an improper and unauthorized alteration to page 7 of the mailed
examiner’s answer by changing “19” to --18-- in each of lines 6 and 9 and adding his
initials in the margin next to the change. See paragraph 2 of the supplemental examiner’s
answer. An otherwise improper alteration of an official mailed communication is not made
proper by adding one’s initials in the margin next to the alteration because this practice
does not notify appellant of the change in the record.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007