Appeal No. 97-1471
Application 08/229,951
Like appellant, after having reviewed the teachings of the applied prior art references, we are of
the opinion that there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied references, or otherwise
specified by the examiner, which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaning
device of Alby in the manner urged by the examiner. The examiner’s assertion (answer, page 4) that
the motivation for modification of the device of Alby “is provided by the secondary patents,” is
ambiguous and fails to set forth any adequate factual basis to support the conclusion of obviousness
asserted by the examiner. Given the teachings in Alby (translation, page 4) concerning the importance
of the diaphragm (7) and the slit (8) therein for selectively controlling the dispensing of cleaning liquid
from the bottle (1), we see no way that one of ordinary skill in the art would have eliminated the
diaphragm and slit of Alby in favor of a feed tube like that of Fulwell or as in any of the other references
applied by the examiner. Like appellant, we consider that the modification of Alby urged by the
examiner is merely a hindsight reconstruction based on impermissible hindsight derived from appellant’s
own teachings. Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
In addition to the foregoing, we find it necessary to REMAND this application to the examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007