Ex Parte Bosko - Page 11


                 Appeal No.  2007-0379                                                    Page 11                   
                 Application No.  10/045,301                                                                        
                                                                                                                   
                 requirements of appellant’s claimed invention.  For example, while the                             
                 examiner asserts that the kiosk is the cabinet, the examiner also asserts                          
                 that the “remote dispenser has a separate cabinet.”  Answer, page 5.  In                           
                 this regard, the examiner asserts that “the kiosk is depicted as having                            
                 separate compartments . . . [e.g.,] the icemaker with separate cabinet . . .                       
                 and the ice bin (another separate cabinet) . . . .”  As we understand the                          
                 examiner’s argument the host systems (e.g., water dispenser and ice                                
                 maker) are separate cabinets within a common cabinet – the kiosk.  This,                           
                 however, is not what appellant has claimed.  As appellant explains (Brief,                         
                 page 7), “[i]f the kiosk is a common cabinet, then there can be no separate                        
                 unit; and, if the kiosk is not a common cabinet, then there can be no                              
                 integrated water treatment system and water-using unit.”  We agree.                                
                       In our opinion, the examiner failed to provide the evidence                                  
                 necessary to establish that appellant’s claimed invention is anticipated3 or                       
                 obvious4 in view of Boulter.  At best, the examiner attempts to selectively                        
                 define different components of Boulter’s structure to conform them into                            
                 what appellant has claimed.  In our opinion this is nothing more than a                            
                 hindsight reconstruction5 of appellant’s claimed invention.  Accordingly, we                       

                                                                                                                    
                 3 “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art
                 reference for it to anticipate the claim.”  Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d    
                 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                                                       
                 4 “A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself   
                 would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the     
                 art.”  In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re         
                 Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).                                     
                 5 In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Combining prior      
                 art references without evidence of such a suggestion, teaching, or motivation simply takes the     




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013