Appeal No. 2003-1118
Application 08/968,534
pressure air strikes and is deflected by the tire. Considered in
light of this disclosure, the relationship set forth in claims 1
and 15 (as well as claim 16) between the air nozzle or nozzle
means and the vacuum flow path is reasonably clear and precise.
Thus, the examiner’s apparent concern that the subject claim
limitations are indefinite is unfounded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 15.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 15 as
being unpatentable over Grant in view of Cothrell
Grant discloses “a device and method for removing and
cleaning a relatively softer material, such as asbestos, from a
relatively harder surface, such as, walls and ceilings” (column
1, lines 7 through 10). As best shown in Figures 2 and 3, the
device includes a cleaning head 10 comprising a housing 12 having
an open face 20, a sleeve 18 on the housing opposite the open
face, a vacuum hose 16 coupled to the sleeve, a plurality of
knives 30, 32, 34 and 36 arranged at the open face, a transverse
scraping blade 40 disposed on the trailing side of the knives,
and a spraying head 42 located on the trailing side of the blade
to direct a high velocity jet 43 of water or other suitable
liquid at the surface being cleaned, preferably at an oblique
angle to enhance the washing action of the jet (see column 4,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007