Ex Parte Sims - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1035                                                        
          Application No. 09/800,153                                                  
          manifold 18 connected downstream of the port and a plurality of             
          elongate tubing members 30, 34 connected to the outlets of the              
          distribution manifold, each tubing member extending through at              
          least one wall of the building and having fluid discharge openings          
          38 spaced along the tubing members.  This appealed subject matter           
          is adequately illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as             
          follows:                                                                    
               1.  A system for distributing pesticide into interior walls of         
          a building comprising                                                       
               a port mounted in an exterior wall of the building, said port          
          being adapted to receive a discharge portion of a fluid injection           
          device wherein the injection device includes an inert gas inlet, a          
          pesticide inlet, and valve means for selectively providing inert            
          gas and pesticide to the discharge portion,                                 
               a distribution manifold connected downstream of the port               
          having an inlet portion and a plurality of outlets,                         
               a plurality of elongate tubing members connected to the                
          outlets, each tubing member extending through at last [sic, least]          
          one wall of the building and having fluid discharge openings spaced         
          along said tubing members.                                                  
               The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner         
          as evidence of obviousness:                                                 
          Hill                     2,246,731           June 24, 1941                  
          Wing                     2,862,765           Dec.  2, 1958                  
          Jackson                  4,800,672           Jan. 31, 1989                  
          Konieczynski             4,917,296           Apr. 17, 1990                  
          Cann                     5,310,114           May  10, 1994                  
               Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as           
          being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Wing, and the remaining          
          appealed claims are correspondingly rejected over these references          
          in various combinations with the other references listed above.             
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007