Appeal No. 2004-1087
Application No. 09/223,472
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Mori in view of Norris
We note that on page 6 of the answer, the examiner relies
upon Norris for the same reasons discussed in the anticipation
rejection, and hence we affirm this rejection regarding claim 1
for the same reasons discussed, supra, and because claims 2-5,
18-24 and 27-31 fall with claim 1 in this rejection, we also
affirm the rejection of these claims too.1 We note that on pages
9-10 of the brief, appellants again argue that the applied art
does not suggest the claimed limitation that when the outlet is
viewed from the right, it is at an angle other than normal to
the surface. We are not persuaded by this argument for the
reasons discussed, supra.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection over Eidschun
On pages 6-7 of the answer, the examiner explains his
position in this rejection. The examiner states that Figure 4
of Eidschun is considered a front view, and Figure 5 is
considered a right view. The examiner states that Eidschun
teaches that nozzles 55 can be angularly adjusted to impinge
directly, or at an acute angle, on the printed circuit board
substrates.
In response, on page 11 of the brief, appellants argue that
claim 1 includes the limitation that the outlet is at an angle
other than normal to the surface so the liquid flows
rotationally over the surface about the central axis.
Appellants argue that Eidschun discloses distributing a fluid in
1 The examiner relies upon Mori for the subject matter of the other
claims in this rejection, and not for the subject matter of claim 1.
Hence, we need not discuss Mori in making our determination herein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007