Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664
for interrupting the rotary spray pattern in at least part of the 360° rotary
spray pattern.” The 360° rotary spray pattern is the spray pattern made by
directing water sprayed from a pair of nozzles toward a surface (see the high
pressure water distribution means clause of claim 9). Skirt 32 does not
interrupt the 360° spray pattern as claimed, it merely vertically surrounds the
spray pattern. Nor is the skirt 32 a “plate,” i.e., a flat sheet of material.
We conclude that skirt 32 is not a “diffuser plate means” within the
meaning of claim 9. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 9,
and those claims dependent on claim 9, namely, claims 10-15.
The only claim left for consideration is claim 4. Claim 4 requires “a
pair of diffuser plates mounted to the chassis between the nozzles and the
surface such that the diffuser plates occlude at least a portion of the path,”
“the path” being the circular path of the water issuing from the rotating
nozzles (see claims 2 and 3 from which claim 4 depends). Skirt 32 is not in
the claimed location, i.e., it is not in a location such that it occludes the
claimed circular water path. Nor is it a pair of plates.
We conclude that skirt 32 is not “a pair of diffuser plates” as required
by claim 4. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
III. CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 4 and 9-15.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is, accordingly, affirmed-in-part.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013