Appeal No. 2005-1175 Page 3
Application No. 09/727,465
Claims 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lewis in view of Kubis.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 21, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief (filed June 1, 2004) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Lewis discloses an apparatus and method for spraying single or multi-component
material in such a manner that there is no physical contact between the material and the
internal passageways of the spray assembly (column 1, lines 51-53). Despite the
examiner’s indication to the contrary on page 3 of the answer, Lewis does disclose use
of the disclosed device to spray paint. Specifically, Lewis discloses that the subject
invention is applicable to spraying any kind of material, but particularly those that are
rapid curing and/or difficult to clean upon drying or setting, such as paint (column 2,
lines 29-33). The Lewis invention is intended to solve the clogging problem in
conventional systems caused by the mixed material passing through internal
passageways in the spray apparatus and quickly curing therein when spraying stops
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007