Appeal No. 2001-2057
Application 09/155,574
We are of the opinion that one skilled in the art would
comprehend the meaning of the recitation “secured to” in the
context used in claim 1, consistent with the underlying
specification (pages 3 and 8) and drawing (Figures 4 and 5),
to denote that the closure body is fixed to the spray nozzle.
With the above understanding of claim 1 in mind, it is
quite apparent that claim 1 is not anticipated by the Fuchs
showing in Figure 3, since valve body (closure member) 17
moves between different positions within the piston shaft
(spray nozzle) 10 and, thus, cannot be fairly said to be
secured to or fixed to the piston shaft. Accordingly, even
though the valve body 17 may be held or restrained in its
initial position within the piston shaft prior to the
generation of sufficiently high pressure that rolls or slides
it off the valve seat 18, this holding does not effect a
securing of the valve body to the piston shaft, as required by
appellants’ claim 1. It is for this reason that the rejection
of claim 1 cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007