Appeal No. 1998-1776
Application No. 08/515,438 Page 3
brief (Paper No. 11, filed November 4, 1997) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 11, 19, and 20 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Koch. It is the
examiner’s view that Koch discloses:
. . . fuel dispensing nozzle comprising a
“housing” 80, a “valve system” 132, a
“handle” 141, a “hollow cavity” containing
“sound systems” 300, 400 (see col. 12, lines
35-42 and Figures 13 and 14) and a “flexible
boot”(see col. 7, lines 5-8) having a
“housing” surmounted thereon proximate
reference numerals 306 and 308 (see Figure
13). [Examiner’s answer at page 5].
We agree with the findings of the examiner and thus, we will
sustain this rejection.
In regard to claim 11, appellants argue that Koch does not
disclose a flexible boot. We do not agree. Koch at col. 7,
lines 5 through 8 clearly discloses a flexible boot.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007