Appeal No. 2005-2154 Page 3
Application No. 10/145,341
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over McMillan in view of Williams.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 5, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief (filed January 16, 2004) and reply brief (filed July 6, 2004) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied McMillan and Williams patents,
and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the
reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Each of appellants’ independent claims 1, 17 and 19 requires relief of fluid
pressure upon an opposing baffle surface when the sensed fluid pressure at a baffle
forward surface exceeds a preselected relief valve pressure. As used by the appellants
in the underlying disclosure and claims, the “baffle forward surface” is the upstream
deflecting surface, denoted as 20 in appellants’ drawings, of the baffle B. McMillan, the
reference relied upon in the anticipation rejection of claims 1-6 and 17-19 and the
primary reference in the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 12, discloses a constant
pressure nozzle for use, for example, in fighting fires, comprising a baffle-piston 1
having an exterior surface 16 (i.e., the baffle forward surface) and opposing interior
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007