Appeal No. 95-1950
Application No. 08/061,928
the rejection of claim 2 as being unpatentable over Mukogawa
in view of Hunt since at least one of the above discussed
deficiencies would persist even if these reference teachings
were combined in the manner proposed by the examiner.
Concerning the rejection based on Zahniser in view of
Hunt, we agree with the examiner's basic position that the
cumulative teachings of these references would have suggested
to one with ordinary skill in the art replacing Zahniser's
cell counter mechanism with a counter mechanism of the type
taught by Hunt. According to the appellant, these references
contain no suggestion of why or how to combine their teachings
in such a manner as to result in the here claimed invention.
This viewpoint is not well founded.
An artisan with ordinary skill would have been motivated
to effect the above noted replacement in order to obtain the
advantages taught by Hunt, namely, the substitution of a
simple and speedy counter mechanism for a relatively expensive
and complicated one (e.g., see lines 19 through 25 in column
1) such as the one taught by Zahniser. Further, the artisan
would have achieved this desideratum by measuring fluid
pressure or flow across Zahniser's filter in accordance with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007