Appeal No. 2001-0673
Application No. 09/138,445
and tip of the Bollag device wherein so doing would
amount to mere substitution of one functional
equivalent sprayer/tip arrangement for another . . . .
Implicit in the above is the examiner’s position that
modified Bollag spray apparatus would correspond in all respects
to the spray gun of the appealed claims.
Discussion
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in
the answer. As a consequence of our review, we conclude that
the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 cannot be sustained. Our reasons follow.
First, it is our view that neither of the applied
references teach a spray gun for spraying liquid comprising an
airless tip assembly which atomizes liquid passed therethrough.
Bollag does not disclose that the “conventional spray nozzle”
thereof for spraying paint comprises an airless tip assembly,
and the examiner does not contend otherwise. As to Waggoner,
the most that can be said for this reference is that Waggoner is
silent as to whether or not the spray nozzles 22, 23 are of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007