Appeal No. 2005-1035
Application No. 09/800,153
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.”
According to the Appellant, “Jackson and the combination of
Jackson and Wing fail to teach of any tubing member extending
through at least one wall of the building and having fluid
discharge openings spaced along the tubing members unlike the
claimed system of Applicant’s claim 1" (Brief, page 13). In this
regard, the Appellant emphasizes that, in Jackson’s system,
“pesticide is simply pumped from a tank until a mist is emitted
through foggers 53 at the end of the lines” and that “[t]here
are no openings in the tubing along the way to the foggers 53”
(Brief, page 13). On the other hand, the Examiner urges that
“[A]ppellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the
claimed invention” (Answer, page 8).
In the Examiner’s view, “Jackson discloses a plurality of
elongated tubing members 55, 52, 51 connected to the outlets (i.e.,
outlets of distribution manifold 57), each tubing member 55, 52, 51
extending through at least one wall of the building and having
fluid discharge openings [i.e., foggers] 53 spaced along said
tubing members 55, 52, 51." Further regarding this viewpoint, the
Examiner emphasizes that “[t]he claim [i.e., appealed claim 1]
is not limited to one straight tube having multiple outlets along
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007