Appeal No. 2001-2139
Application 09/189,643
of the Huffman patent (which is of record) confirms what is
manifest: that an “air” nozzle is one which issues a stream of
pressurized air. In terms of an air nozzle sprayer, the
stream of pressurized air functions to atomize the fluid being
sprayed. In short, the examiner has not advanced any
evidentiary basis to support the assertions that the type of
spraying disclosed by Carroll inherently requires an air
nozzle to produce a mist and that a mist cannot be created
without an air nozzle. Indeed, Carroll’s teaching that the
spray coating step disclosed therein may be performed by
ultrasonic spraying seems to belie the examiner’s position. 2
Thus, the Carroll reference does not provide the factual
basis necessary to find that it discloses each and every
element of the invention recited in claim 6. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claim 6, and dependent claims 7 through 10, as being
anticipated by Carroll.
REMAND
2The examiner does not dispute the passage in the
appellants’ specification (see page 3) differentiating an air
nozzle from an ultrasonic nozzle.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007