Appeal No. 2003-1463 Page 4
Application No. 09/536,341
According to Babka, the impact of the oil striking each flange may cause some
atomization but, at any rate, the film formed on each succeeding flange is thinner
because of the increased rotational velocity imparted to the oil and because of the
increased area of each succeeding flange (page 2, lines 28-34). Babka further explains
(page 2, lines 42-48) that
[i]n order to enable a very small quantity of oil to be handled
with uniformity the end of the goose neck 16 is preferably
adjusted quite close to the inner ring 7 so that the rotating
surface will pull the oil evenly out of the opening and prevent
the formation of drops.
Appellants argue on pages 9 and 10 of their brief that Babka is not directed to a
powder coating system and that the examiner has failed to specify how the goose neck
extension 16 can accommodate an air-powder mixture, pointing out that the goose neck
extension, which is “directed almost immediately into a circumferential wall,” along with
the slot structure 17 of Babka would quickly cause the chamber to clog up with powder
if used as a powder coating system.
In response, the examiner references Babka’s disclosure in column 1, lines 14-
18, that the rotary atomizer can be used for other purposes and urges that, since
Babka’s device has all the claimed limitations, there is nothing that would preclude it
from being used “for spraying a powder coating product” and that, since Babka’s cavity
does in fact accommodate a feed pipe, it is capable of performing the function of
accommodating an air-powder mixture feed pipe as recited (answer, page 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007