Appeal No. 2003-0653 Page 9
Application No. 09/861,268
In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in the appeal (answer, p. 4), the
examiner (1) ascertained4 that the Admitted Prior Art does not include a fluid source to
stream fluid past the tip end; (2) determined that Hedel teaches a fluid source 86 to
stream fluid past a tip end 22; and (3) concluded that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided the
Admitted Prior Art with a fluid source to stream fluid past the tip end, in light of the
teachings of Hedel, in order to transport the blunt to another location after separating
the blunt from the set of blunts.
The appellant argues that Hedel does not teach a fluid source to stream fluid
past a tip end. We agree. Hedel teaches the use of a vacuum source 86 to generate
suction at nozzles 54 and 56 sufficient to cause a stone 12 disposed in an indention 28
on end 22 of rod 24 to be drawn into one of the nozzles when the stone is disposed
adjacent to one of the nozzles. Thus, vacuum source 86 is not a fluid source to stream
fluid past the indention 28 on end 22 of rod 24 (i.e., the a tip end). Likewise, while air
will also be drawn into a nozzle with the stone, there is no air source to stream air past
4 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior
art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007