Appeal No. 1998-1776
Application No. 08/515,438 Page 4
Appellants also argue, in regard to claims 19 and 20 that
Koch does not disclose a fuel dispensing nozzle which itself
contains a housing and in which there is situated a wireless
sound or video system. These arguments are not persuasive
because claim 19 does not recite that the nozzle itself contains
a housing in which a wireless sound or video system is situated.
Claim 19 recites a “hollow cavity contained within the
housing . . . capable of containing a system . . ..”. The
housing in which signaling device 300 is disposed (see Fig. 13)
is capable of containing a sound system. In fact, device 300 is
disclosed as a device which may produce a visual and audible
signal. (Col. 12, lines 36 to 42). Further, neither claim 19
nor claim 20 recites that the sound or video system is wireless.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kaplan.
The examiner states:
The Kaplan et al. reference discloses a fuel
nozzle comprising a “housing” 112 having a
“hollow cavity” for housing optional
electronics 113 (see col. 3, lines 13-22).
All introductory and functional statements of
intended use have been carefully considered
but are deemed not to impose any structure on
the claims distinguishable over the Kaplan et
al. device which is further capable of
housing a video or sound system if desired.
[Examiner’s answer at page 5].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007