Appeal No. 98-1640
Application 08/535,850
Appellants also a) assert that “the instant invention is
an internal mixing nozzle” unlike the nozzle of Nielsen (main
brief, page 7), b) acknowledge that the claims make no
reference to “internal” or “external” (reply brief, page 2),
and c) indicate that the argument in the brief was made to
explain the differences between appellants’ invention and the
reference (reply brief, page 2). We are not convinced by
appellants’ argument that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have understood with certainty that the Nielsen
atomizing nozzle of Figure 6 with its internal mixing
(comparable to appellants’ Figure 2) was other than an
internal mixing nozzle. This view is considered to be
supported by the showing of the internal-mixing air-assist
atomizer (left embodiment) in Figure 4.38 of Exhibit A
appended to the main brief.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 1, 11 through 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007