advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of
their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse this rejection. Our reasons for this
determination are set forth below.
Rather than reiterate the positions set forth by
appellants and the examiner, we focus on the relevant aspects,
discussed below.
On pages 3 through 4 of the brief, appellants indicate
that Bourdeau discloses gas nozzles added outside the cup to
assure rapid cooling of the droplets. On page 3 of the
answer, the examiner states that Bourdeau teaches a nozzle
used for molten metal which is extended down into the spinning
cup with a plurality of nozzles for directing cooling fluid
into the cup and examiner refers to column 2, lines through
25, lines 35 through 37, lines 42 through 50, and lines 57
through 68 of Bourdeau.
Our review of Bourdeau indicates that nozzle plate means
shown in Fig. 1 include a plurality of annular nozzles therein
for directing a cooling fluid downwardly around the cup means
(90). See Fig. 1 and column 2, lines 42 through 45. We
cannot find disclosure indicating that the annular nozzles of
nozzle plate means (10) supply antomizing fluid “to the inner
wall of said cup means” as set forth in appellants’ claim 1.
The examiner has not explained how Bourdeau discloses this
aspect of appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, we agree with
appellants’ observations of Bourdeau in this regard.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007