Appeal No. 2003-0806 Page 2
Application No. 09/219,275
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a spray gun with a plurality of single nozzles
for a fluid bed processing system. Further understanding of appellants’ invention may
be obtained from a reading of independent claims 1 and 22, which are reproduced in
the opinion section of this appeal.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Martin 3,390,648 Jul. 2, 1968
Melliger 4,407,844 Oct. 4, 1983
Imanidis et al. (Imanidis) 4,895,733 Jan. 23, 1990
Boos et al. (Boos) 5,693,362 Dec. 2, 1997
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18, 21-25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Imanidis in view of Martin and Melliger.
Claims 6, 17, 19, 20, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Imanidis in view of Martin, Melliger and Boos.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 33) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 32) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007