Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER NORMAN IN VIEW OF
PACKARD
Claims 6, 22, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Norman in view of Packard.
Packard teaches the use of a metering disc 55 to regulate the amount
of fluid that flows from a cartridge (Figures 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 20-23).
Claim 6 recites the metering orifice of claim 1 to be “on a metering
disc that is adjustable to select one of several orifice sizes.” The Examiner
relies on Packard to teach a metering disc 55 in a spray gun/cartridge
arrangement (Answer 15). The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have provided the metering disc of Packard to the device of
Norman to regulate/control the flow [of the cartridge liquid]” (Answer para.
bridging 15-16).
Appellants argue that “even if a metering disc was to be included in
the Norman invention, the resulting product still would not possess all of the
claimed limitations set forth [in claim 1]” (Br. 17). Appellants also argue
that “Packard adds nothing more than disclosure of a rotatable disk with a
series of holes in conjunction with a spraying device consisting of a spray
gun and a container. Therefore, a combination of Norman and Packard does
not disclose, teach or suggest the limitations found in claim[] 6” (Br. para.
bridging 17-18).
The Examiner responds that “Packard is not relied on for the
limitations found in [claim 1, from which claim 6 depends]. Rather, Packard
is only relied on for the teaching of the rotatable metering disk 55. The
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007