Appeal No. 2004-0672
Application No. 09/894,704
appellants’ contention by arguing that, “[w]hile some of the
terms used to define the feature of the contested claim language
can be found amongst the wording in the two sections [i.e.,
specification pages 10 and 12], such does not appear to set forth
the particular combination of features set forth by the [claim
56] language quoted supra” (answer, page 4).
We cannot agree with the examiner’s viewpoint. The
disclosures on pages 10 and 12 both refer to the spray nozzles
which form a cold air intercepting screen (e.g., see the first
full paragraph on specification page 10). These spray nozzles
are described as producing a shower having “a flat spray shape”
in the paragraph bridging specification pages 10-11 and as
producing a spray pattern (i.e., via the second spray nozzle)
which is “about vertical” in the first sentence of the paragraph
beginning on specification page 12. Under these circumstances,
we are persuaded that the above discussed disclosures of the
appellants’ originally filed specification would convey to an
artisan that the appellants had possession on their filing date
of the claim 56 subject matter “a substantially flat spray of
water in a substantially vertical plane.”
It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s section
112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 56-64.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007