Appeal No. 98-1532
Application No. 08/438,533
The examiner has taken the position that Leite discloses
all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 except for the
domed upper surface and “an aperture diameter sufficient for
the sprinkler head” (Paper No. 5, page 2-3), which we
interpret to mean an aperture that allows the sprinkler head
to “freely penetrate the aperture when operating,” as is
required by
claim 1. The examiner continues on page 3:
Block is relied upon merely to show that it is known
in the art to provide a dome shaped upper surface 5,
6. It would have been obvious . . . to have
provided the circular disk of Leite with a dome
shaped upper surface like that of Block, in order to
drain the water away from the sprinkler head. . .
.[I]t would have been an obvious matter of design
choice dependent on such considerations as cost and
strength, as well as ease of setup for a particular
size of sprinkler head, to make the central bore 15
of Leite with an aperture the size of or a size
larger than a diameter sufficient for the sprinkler
head to freely penetrate . . . when operating.
We do not agree with the examiner’s reasoning or
conclusion. We begin our rationale for arriving at this
decision by pointing out that neither of the references has
recognized the problem to which the appellant has directed his
inventive efforts nor, in our view, is there any evidence
which would support the conclusion that the combined teachings
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007