Appeal No. 2000-1327
Application No. 08/402,624
The advantage of this arrangement over prior art water guns
such as Johnson is set forth on page 7 of appellant’s
specification as follows:
The expandable pressure tanks as just describe[d]
maintain a more constant pressure upon the water
therein as compared to pressure tanks of the prior art
utilizing compressed air. This is due to the fact that
[in the prior art] as water is removed from the
pressure tank the volume of airspace increases while
the quantity of air remains the same. This results in
a rapid decrease in air pressure pressurizing the water
within the tank.
Thus, the key distinguishing feature of the presently
claimed water gun relative to the prior art Johnson water gun is
the expandable pressure reservoir. This feature is set forth in
one form or another in each of the independent claims on appeal.
The references presently relied upon by the examiner, and by
us in the prior decision, to bridge the gap between the prior art
Johnson water gun and the claimed subject matter are Shindo and
Salmon. In each of these references, water under pressure is
forced into an elastic bladder by connecting the bladder to a
source of pressurized water, such as a conventional faucet.2 See
Shindo, column 3, lines 19-35, and Salmon, column 2, lines 37-50.
2In the background section of the specification, appellant
recognizes that water guns operating on this principle were known
at the time of appellant’s invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007