Appeal No. 2005-1035
Application No. 09/800,153
For a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the Appellant and by the Examiner concerning these rejections,
we refer to the brief and reply brief as well as to the answer.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of these rejections. Our reasons
follow.
Both the Appellant and the Examiner interpret appealed
claim 1, which is the sole independent claim on appeal, as
requiring a fluid injection device, and both agree that the
centralized fumigation (i.e., pesticide distributing) system of
Jackson fails to include such a device. However, the Appellant and
the Examiner disagree with respect to the obviousness of providing
Jackson’s system with the aforenoted fluid injection device vis-á-
vis the Examiner’s conclusion that “[i]t would have been obvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have provided the injection device of Wing to the
system of Jackson to utilize a non-explosive propellent (Wing,
column 2, line 38)”(Answer, page 4).
In addition, the Appellant and the Examiner disagree with
respect to the claim 1 recitation “a plurality of elongate tubing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007