Appeal No. 1998-1776
Application No. 08/515,438 Page 5
We agree with the findings of the examiner and thus we will
sustain this rejection.
Appellants argue Kaplan does not describe, disclose or
otherwise show a fuel dispensing nozzle in which there is
situated a wireless sound or video system. This argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the actual scope
of claims 19, 21 and 22 which do not recite that a wireless sound
or video system is situated in a fuel dispensing nozzle. Rather,
claim 19 from which claim 22 depends, recites that the housing
has a hollow cavity which is “capable of containing a system . .
.” Claim 21 recites a wired sound or video system. In our view,
the housing 112 in Kaplan is capable of containing a video or
sound system which is wired or wireless.
We turn finally to the examiner’s rejection of claims 11,
20, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kaplan in view of Koch. Recognizing that Kaplan does not
disclose a flexible boot, the examiner relies on Koch for this
teaching and concludes:
. . . it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the Kaplan et
al. nozzle to have a “flexible boot” in view
of the teachings of the Koch et al. reference
to provide protection and enhanced appearance
for the fuel nozzle (see col. 7, lines 5-8).
[Examiner’s answer at page 6].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007