Appeal No. 2001-2193 Page 8
Application No. 09/152,515
pressurized liquid fuel injected therefrom will atomize) is
necessarily present in the description of Forney, and that it
would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.
For the reasons set forth above, claim 1 is not
anticipated by Forney. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2, 4 and 10 dependent
thereon, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We have also reviewed the references (i.e., Squire,
Gebhardt and Akimoto) additionally applied in the rejection of
claims 3 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiency of Forney discussed above.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of
appealed claims 3 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007