Appeal No. 1999-1770
Application 08/750,625
discussed above, Cunningham discloses tubes with perforations,
as broadly recited. Since Korchak discloses the use of
compressed air to purge lines in between different materials
to prevent contami- nation (col. 1, lines 22 to 25; col. 3,
line 29, et seq.), it would in our view have been obvious to
add a compressed air supply to the spraying tubes of
Cunningham to purge the tubes and
prevent contamination between different insecticides. Such
a modification of the Cunningham system would have been sug-
gested to one of ordinary skill by Korchak's disclosure of an
air purge system, and the obvious advantages to be gained
therefrom.
The rejection of claim 11 will not be sustained,
since the claimed perforation hole diameters would not have
been obvious for use in the Cunningham apparatus. See the
previous discussion concerning claims 6 and 8.
The rejection of claims 14 and 15 will not be
sustained because the limitations recited in these two claims
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007