Ex Parte Duren et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-1824                                                        
          Application No. 10/131,068                                                  

               an interface device to open the second end when the second             
          end is positioned to provide pressurized air to the inlet port              
          and to close the second end when the second end is removed from             
          the inlet port.                                                             
               13. A combination for controlling airflow out of an air                
          hose, comprising:                                                           
               an inlet port for receiving pressurized air from an end of             
          an air hose; and,                                                           
               an interface device to act between the end and the inlet               
          port by opening the end when the end is received by the inlet               
          port and to close the end when the end is separated from the                
          inlet port.                                                                 
                                    THE INVENTION                                     
               The appellants claim a system for controlling airflow                  
          through an air hose.  Claims 1 and 13 are illustrative:                     
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Shelton                     5,230,611              Jul. 27, 1993            
          Kappel                      5,749,109              May  12, 1998            
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-3, 7-15, 19-24, 28-30, 34-42 and 46-51 stand                  
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                   
          Shelton.1                                                                   
                                       REMAND                                         
               The application is not in condition for decision on appeal.            
          Accordingly, we remand the application to the examiner.                     
                                                                                     
          1 Kappel is relied upon by the examiner as evidence that Shelton’s system is
          convective (answer, pages 5-6).                                             
                                          2                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013