Appeal No. 2002-1666
Application 09/394,289
inner surface of the air cap. Although Black’s fluid tip or
fitting 48 certainly embodies a circular shaped member, it does
not abut the inner surface of the air cap or nozzle extension 32
(see Figure 4). The examiner’s apparent dismissal of this
limitation because it lacks written descriptive support in the
specification (see page 7 in the answer) is not well taken. When
evaluating claims for obviousness under § 103(a), all of the
limitations recited therein must be considered and given weight,
even those which do not find support in the specification as
originally filed. See MPEP § 2143.03.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claim 4,
as being unpatentable over Black.
As the examiner’s application of Breitsprecher, Schowiak
and/or Warren does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Black
relative to the subject matter recited in parent claim 1, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent
claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable over Black in view of
Breitsprecher, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claim
5 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Schowiak, the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claim 6 as being
unpatentable over Black in view of Schowiak and Warren, or the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007