Appeal No. 96-0515
Application 08/169,081
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention,
absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the
combination. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 834, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The examiner has not satisfactorily
explained, and it is not apparent to us, why the artisan,
without using hindsight based on Appellants' application,
would have desired to replace Baker's substrate member 102,
which does not perform any filtering whatsoever, with
Kneezel's filter 14, which does, especially since Baker's pen
body 10 already includes three ink filters 36, 38, and 40,
which are formed of stainless steel wire mesh and serve to
filter out air bubbles and solid particles (col. 2, lines 36-
43).
For the foregoing reason, the rejection of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Baker in view of
Kneezel is
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007