Appeal No. 2005-0206
Application No. 10/310,420
are in full agreement with the examiner that it would have been
most obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a
quite conventional support column to effect support for the
assembly of Kok. We agree with the examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood from Kromer that "ductwork
for dispensing beverages at counters or bars does not float in
the air, but is supported in dispensing stations such as that
shown in phantom in Fig. 3" (page 5 of Answer, second paragraph).
While appellants suggest that "the piping of Kromer is more
likely either mounted on or hidden inside a solid wall behind the
counter or bar from which the drinks are being served" (page 2 of
Reply Brief, third paragraph), it cannot be gainsaid that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been able to resort to a
myriad of conventional structures for supporting the assembly of
Kok. Manifestly, a support column as presently claimed is simply
one of the conventional means known for support.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007