Appeal No. 2004-0534 Page 3
Application No. 10/010,337
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of independent claims 11 and 17 recites a flow device comprising a body
attachable to first and second fluid supply conduits, the body having an interior channel
having a first inlet for flow of water from the first supply conduit, a second inlet for flow
of air from the second fluid conduit and a slotted nozzle configured to discharge the air
and water in a substantially coplanar flow, the second inlet being located between the
first inlet and the nozzle and the channel further including an interior dam located
between the first and second inlets and forming a reduced cross-sectional area of the
channel, the cross-sectional area then increasing between the dam and the second
inlet.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007