Appeal No. 97-2884
Application 07/824,855
the protrusion of needle 20 from Cohen’s bottom contour and
the presence of bladder accommodating pocket 26 in
Malacheski’s bottom contour. In this light, it is evident
that the only motivation for combining Cohen or Malacheski and
Gangemi in the manner proposed by the examiner stems from
impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants’
own disclosure. In other words, the fair teachings of Cohen
or Malacheski and Gangemi would not have suggested the subject
matter recited in claims 58, 60 and 61 to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
The proposed combination of Negaty-Hindi, Cohen,
Malacheski and Gangemi to support the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 58, and claim 59 which depends therefrom,
suffers from the same flaw. Negaty-Hindi discloses a
carbonated drink dispenser which fails to respond to a number
of limitations in claims 58 and 59 including the one in
independent claim 58 requiring the platen to have a non-planar
bottom surface configuration which is complementary to the
bottom contour of the second shell or chamber. In short, the
combined teachings of the applied references would not have
suggested the modifications of Negaty-Hindi’s carbonated drink
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007