Appeal No. 2006-1844 6
Application No. 10/080,292
Casey at 370 F.2d 579, 152 USPQ at 238. The appellants have
provided argument and reasoning as to why Verreet, Donadio
and Siramanne could not provide these capabilities. Since
the examiner has not rebutted appellants’ arguments with
any additional arguments or evidence, we can not sustain
the examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1 which is
based on these capabilities being found in the prior art.
Accordingly, the rejections of independent claim 1 and
the claims dependent thereon under both section 102 and
section 103 are reversed.
On the other hand, as outlined above, both Verreet and
Donadio disclose multiple discharge portions. Each
discharge portion is comprised of a circumferential row of
perforations, with each perforation of a discrete row, in
use, at the same hydrodynamic head as the other
perforations of the same row. Since all perforations of
each row are at the same head, each row generates a
substantially uniform cylindrical pool of treatment fluid.
The claims are silent as to the linear extent of the
cylindrical pool or the treatment site. The claims do not
exclude a plurality of discharge portions. Thus Verreet and
Donadio anticipate claim 17, and Verreet anticipates claim
18. The rejections of these claims under section 102 based
on Verreet and Donadio are affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007