Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Norman.
Claim 16 recites “the cartridge includes a secondary threaded
closure." Appellants argue, “Norman does not teach a secondary threaded
closure” (Br. 10).
The Examiner contends:
Norman teaches a secondary threaded closure 24.
Norman shows the neck 24 having threads on the
external surface above flange 22 in figures 1, 2A
and 2B. Claim 16 does not further limit the
secondary threaded closure. The claim reads on
Norman's neck 24. Neck 24 is a closure of
cartridge 10 and is threaded [Answer 18].
Appellants reply that “the wavy features above the flange 22 are not
threads but beads to allow a cap to snap-on the cartridge. . . . Hence, there is
no teaching or disclosure of threads included in the Norman cartridge”
(Reply Br. 6).
We agree with Appellants. We note that the cartridge 10 of Norman
is attached to the spray gun 12 by a “[m]echanism 14 [that] incorporates a
spring loaded release switch 16 which cooperates with latching tabs 18 and
20 to engage latching flange 22 on neck 24 of cartridge 10 to secure
cartridge 10 to gun 12” (col. 2, ll. 13-16). This structure in Norman does not
correspond to the claimed “secondary threaded closure.”
Accordingly, we will not sustain the anticipatory rejection of claim 16
over Norman.
We now consider independent claim 19. The most significant
difference between independent claim 19 and independent claim 1 is that
claim 19 specifically requires “a valve structure allowing passage of the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007