Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Kinsey 695,399 Mar. 11, 1902
Vretman 2,075,384 Mar. 30, 1937
Jackson 2,592,904 Apr. 15, 1952
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson taken
with Kinsey, and claims 5 and 13 are correspondingly rejected
over these references and further in view of Vretman.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer
respectively for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, these rejections cannot
be sustained.
According to the examiner,
Jackson (Figs. 1 and 2) substantially
discloses applicant’s invention as recited by
instant claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11 and 12, except
for the nozzles being fixed in a stationary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007