Appeal No. 2006-0219
Application No. 09/855,002
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over
the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the answer,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the rejection of claims 18, 20 and 22
under Section 102 over Hehl. We agree with the examiner that the
injector nozzle of Hehl meets the claim requirement for a liquid
distributor having a tapered drainage pipe in the shape of a
nozzle, i.e., the injection nozzle of Hehl is a liquid
distributor of moldable material that comprises drainage pipes
22, 12 and 13 that are in communication with tapered nozzle 2.
Appellants contend that “Hehl does not disclose a liquid
distributor as this term is understood in the art” (page 4 of
brief, third paragraph). However, appellants’ specification does
not define “liquid distributor” in any way that distinguishes the
devices encompassed by the appealed claims from the distributor
of liquid material described by Hehl. Also, appellants have
presented no objective evidence which establishes that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider the device of Hehl
to be a liquid distributor. Furthermore, while appellants
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007