Appeal No. 2005-1426 Page 3
Application No. 09/985,050
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 23 to 30 and 32 to 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mulzet in view of Borchardt. We initially
note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner finds that Mulzet describes the invention as recited in claim 23
except that Mulzet does not describe a trap dam that includes a downstream portion
having a relatively gradual slope. The examiner relies on Borchardt for teaching a trap
dam with a relatively gradual slop at the downstream portion to provide the advantage
of preventing turbulence. The examiner concludes:
. . . it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
made the dam of Mulzet (‘712) with a downstream portion having a
relatively gradual slope to prevent turbulence [final rejection at page 4].
Appellants argue that neither Mulzet nor Borchardt describes the trap dam
recited in claim 23. In appellants’ view Mulzet describes a trap dam that extends
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007