Appeal No. 97-1226 Page 8
Application No. 08/288,479
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was made to modify
the device of Davis to have a spray mechanism for
delivery of the product to be dispensed as taught by
Diamond et al., since this is a substitution of one
delivery means for another that would function equally as
well.
We agree.3
The arguments presented by the appellant with respect to
this ground of rejection are unpersuasive for the following
reasons.
First, the appellant argues in the edited reply brief
that the claimed orifice is absent from both Davis and
Diamond. We do not agree. In evaluating references it is
proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of
the references but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In
this case, it is our opinion that both Davis and Diamond
3The appellant does not dispute the obviousness of
combining the references as set forth by the examiner. The
appellant does argue (as set forth infra) that the combined
prior art lacks certain structure recited in claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007