Appeal No. 1999-2225
Application No. 08/815,441
the appellants have responded to the examiner's rejection with
the same presumption. (Appeal brief, page 6.)
In the final Office action, the examiner held ( id. at page
2):
2. The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71
as being inoperative. The device would be incapable of
performing either the presumed operation of vacuuming
material from a work surface or of cooperating with a
canister vacuum cleaner because neither an inlet nor
outlet is disclosed in the outer canister of the
assembly. Therefore, the device is incapable of
drawing air-entrained liquid or dust into the outer
housing 40, and air will merely circulate through the
venturi and out through the perforations to cycle again
through the inlet of the venturi.
3. The specification is further objected to for
various reasons listed in the following. It is not
seen what the function of the lower and middle portions
of the venturi member is supposed to be. Since the
inlet to the venturi is solely disclosed as placed low
in the container, should any liquid or dust be somehow
present in the housing, the nearness of the inlet of
the fan to the dirt/liquid at the bottom would tend to
pick up more dirt/liquid in the air stream than if the
middle and lower sections were not present! The
statement that the venturi assembly is "supported" by
horn 56 is not seen to have any basis, as no means of
supportive contact is described or shown between 12 and
56, and any but point contact would obstruct the inlet
of the venturi. How 35 may be considered to be a
"valve" to cut off flow through the venturi is not
understood, as no structure of an obstructing member in
the throat is set forth that would not nearly, if not
completely block off the throat at all positions of the
float, assuming that the double horizontal line is a
solid member.
The examiner's position is without merit.
It is important to emphasize that the initial burden of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007