Ex Parte Bosko - Page 13


                 Appeal No.  2007-0379                                                    Page 13                   
                 Application No.  10/045,301                                                                        
                                                                                                                   
                 Credle to make up for the deficiencies in Boulter set forth above.  Accordingly,                   
                 we reverse the rejection of claims 26 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                     
                 unpatentable over the combination of Boulter and Credle.                                           


                       The combination of Boulter and Voznick:                                                      
                       Claims 1, 8, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                         
                 unpatentable over the combination of Boulter and Voznick.                                          
                       To facilitate our discussion, we direct attention to Boulter’s Figure 24                     
                 reproduced above.  According to the examiner (Answer, page 7, emphasis                             
                 added), Boulter                                                                                    
                       teaches a water-using unit . . . comprising a cabinet . . ., treated                         
                       water source (2300), a host system (fig 24,[ ]26), control system                            
                       (fig 24,[ ]26), a separate remote unit coupled to the unit (water                            
                       dispenser - ozonator 16,[ ]17 . . .) and a cooling source located in                         
                       cooling proximity to the reservoir (. . . ice maker [2019] is a cooling                      
                       source in cooling proximity to the reservoir 2301) as in instant                             
                       claim 1. The reservoir 2301 is proximate to the ice maker 2019, and                          
                       therefore, inherently would have cooling proximity, as in the                                
                       applicant’s invention disclosed in page 9 lines 15-20[ ]6 . . . .                            
                 The examiner finds that “Boulter does not teach a flexible reservoir for 2300 as in                
                 [appellant’s] claim 1.”  Answer, page 7, emphasis added.  To make up for this                      
                 deficiency, the examiner relies on Voznick to teach “a reservoir having a bladder                  
                 in which the reverse osmosis water is inside the bladder . . . .”  Id.  Based on                   
                 these findings the examiner concludes that “[i]t would be obvious to one of                        
                 ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the teaching of Voznick in               
                                                                                                                    
                 6 According to page 9, lines 15-18 of appellant’s specification “[i]n a preferred embodiment, the  
                 reservoir 42 is located in close proximity to evaporator . . . or other cooling source (such as,   
                 without limitation, ice in the ice bin of an ice maker or dispenser), to cool (pre-chill) the water
                 within the reservoir.”                                                                             




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013