Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
atomizer mesh plate of Anthony. In addition, the nozzle plate 4
of Sugimoto is intended to be used in conjunction with the
perforated cover 5 in order to achieve the desired spraying
effect. We also find that Maehara is of little or no value in
the rejection of claim 28 since flared outlet holes are not
claimed in claim 28.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 28 on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Anthony, Bendig, Takahashi, Maehara
and Sugimoto.
We have additionally reviewed the patents to Ross and
Ballentine applied by the examiner against dependent claims 31
through 33, but find nothing in these references which provide
teachings to overcome the deficiencies we have noted above in the
combination of Anthony, Bendig, Takahashi, Maehara and Sugimoto.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections of
dependent claims 29 and 31 through 33 which depend from claim 28.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claim 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anthony,
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007