Appeal No. 1998-1425
Application No. 08/437,808
spraying upwardly from below as recited in claims 1 and 2 is
not simply an arbitrary choice of direction but rather, as
disclosed in appellants' specification in the paragraph
bridging pages 4 and 5, as well as on page 9, last paragraph,
it is done in order to assure flux application to the entire
inner surface of the tube, with unnecessary extra flux
material dropping by its own weight.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 will not be
sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 2 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007