Appeal No. 2003-1463 Page 8
Application No. 09/536,341
space. We agree with appellants that Ficker, directed to a centrifugal spray device for
applying a liquid coating composition comprising a spray head provided with a labyrinth
passage with a series of successive conical faces against which the liquid impinges to
disperse the liquid into fine particles, affords no suggestion to provide a labyrinth flow
passage on Chabert’s spray head for applying an air-powder mixture. First, the purpose
for which the labyrinth flow passage is provided in Ficker’s liquid application device,
namely, dispersion of the liquid into fine particles, is not relevant to Chabert’s air-powder
mixture spray head. Second, as evidenced by EP 870,546, as discussed above,
differences between the behavior of liquids being sprayed and powders being sprayed
were recognized in the art at the time of appellants’ invention and, in light of the
recognized issues with accumulation of powders in flow passages discussed in EP
870,546, one skilled in the art of air-powder mixture sprayers at the time of appellants’
invention would not necessarily have viewed the teachings of Ficker as being applicable
to Chabert’s device. For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-7 as being unpatentable over Chabert in view of Ficker.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007