Appeal No. 98-0956
Application 08/385,331
generating means “for generating opposing colliding streams of flowing liquid.”
Independent method claim 8 is similar in that it requires that the step of generating the
spreading sheet of liquid “comprises generating opposing colliding streams of flowing
liquid.”
There is no dispute that Sokolov, the examiner’s primary reference, does not meet
these claim limitations. The examiner contends, however, that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have provided the [Sokolov] reference with the alternate
sheet generating means, taught by Simmons, so as to allow the shape and characteristic
of the sheet to be changes [sic, changed]” (answer, page 4). We do not agree.
Simmons relates to a method and apparatus for shaping and positioning fluid
dispersal patterns “for use in decorative water fountains, dish washers, and the like”
(abstract). We appreciate that in Simmons the liquid patterns are formed by opposing
colliding streams of flowing liquid. We also appreciate that if Sokolov were modified in the
manner proposed by the examiner, the subject matter of claims 1 and 8 may very well
result. Nevertheless, we view the examiner’s combination as a hindsight reconstruction
based solely on appellant’s disclosure and not on anything fairly suggested by the
references themselves. The dissimilarity of purpose of the applied references, as well as
the diverse manner in which they handle the fluid, belies their combination in the absence
of the teachings found in appellant’s disclosure. In this regard, the examiner’s rationale for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007