Appeal No. 2006-0219
Application No. 09/855,002
The examiner relies upon the following references in the
rejection of the appealed claims:
Ohlswager et al. (Ohlswager) 3,899,000 Aug. 12, 1975
Hehl 3,936,262 Feb. 3, 1976
Dear et al. (Dear) 4,479,509 Oct. 30, 1984
Plachy 5,154,353 Oct. 13, 1992
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a liquid
distributor comprising a channel distributor with drainage
outlets. According to appellants, “[t]o ensure that the
uniformity of distribution of the liquid is largely independent
of the disturbances factors, for example blockages of the
drainage outlets, the drainage outlets are in the form of
drainage pipes having a cross-section which tapers in the shape
of a nozzle” (page 2 of brief, third paragraph).
Appealed claims 18, 20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hehl. Claims 23-29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Ohlswager. In addition, claims 1-14, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Plachy in view of Dear.
Appellants submit at page 3 of the brief that “[t]he claims
stand and fall together.” Accordingly, the claims separately
rejected by the examiner stand or fall together as a group.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007