Appeal No. 2004-1419
Application 09/733,041
Like appellant, we find the examiner’s arbitrary selection
of the smallest individual exit area (0.02 mm2) for the vanes in
Lund and the fewest number of vanes (two) to provide a nozzle
having a cumulative vane exit area of only 0.04 mm2 (and ratio
values within the ranges set forth in claim 1 on appeal) to be
contrary to the clear teachings of the Lund patent and so far
outside the range of cumulative vane exit areas indicated by Lund
as to make it highly unlikely that such a nozzle would even be
capable of producing an atomized liquid spray from a manually-
actuated pump dispenser having a 40 micron or less mean particle
size with a required activation liquid pressure below 200 psig,
as mandated by Lund. Thus, in the final analysis, we share
appellant’s view that Lund fails to disclose the claimed subject
matter set forth in independent claim 1 on appeal with sufficient
specificity as to constitute anticipation under the statute. For
that reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 through 12, 23, 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lund.
Nor will we sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 24 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lund alone or that of claims 13
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007