Appeal No. 95-3684
Application 08/110,273
to teach a means for delivering the dosed formula into a
container to the
customer as a cosmetic product, said delivery means including
a first and second pump of different pumping capacity as
recited in Appellant's claim 22. On the same page of the
answer, the Examiner states it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to design pumping systems to have
different pumping capacities. We note that the Examiner did
not provide any evidence in prior art to support the
Examiner's conclusion.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
After a careful review of Krauss, we fail to find that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007