Appeal No. 98-0956
Application 08/385,331
the rejection, namely, “so as to allow the shape and characteristic of the sheet to be
change[d]” (answer, page 4) is insufficient to justify the combination. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1 or 8, or claims 3 to 7, 10 to 17 and 20 to 23 that
depend from claim 1.
Concerning the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over
Sokolov in view of Simmons, the Simmons reference does not render obvious what we
have found to be lacking in Sokolov, that is, “a single spray nozzle, containing within said
nozzle a means for generating a spreading sheet of liquid” as called for in paragraph (a) of
that claim. Accordingly, the § 103 rejection of claim 19 also will not be sustained.
Turning to the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable over
Sokolov in view of Hobbs, claim 18 distinguishes over Sokolov in that it requires a fixed
target, placed in the stream of flowing liquid for generating the sheet of liquid. The Hobbs
reference relied upon by the examiner for this feature pertains to a fluid
projection screen system comprising a fluid projection screen 23 formed by deflecting a
stream of water from a nozzle 38 off a fixed deflection plate 56. A projector 18 projects an
image upon the screen. The Hobbs reference is no more pertinent to Sokolov than the
Simmons reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting claim 1 et al. As with the §
103 rejection discussed above, the examiner’s combination is based solely on appellant’s
disclosure and not on anything fairly suggested by the references themselves.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007