Appeal No. 1999-1770
Application 08/750,625
"positioned above the higher of a feces floor or a feces
board," as claimed, because Aki only discloses a feces floor.
Rejection (1) will therefore be sustained.
Rejection (2)
We agree with appellants that it would not have been
obvious, in view of Arnt, to modify the spraying apparatus
disclosed by Cunningham in the manner proposed by the
examiner. Specifically, we do not consider that Arnt's
disclosure of a perforated tube would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill the substitution of a perforated tube for the
nozzle-equipped conduit system 9, 11 of Cunningham, because
the thus-modified system would not be able to maintain the
system under a positive pressure at all times. Since
Cunningham discloses that the
maintenance of such positive pressure is an advantage for
enabling immediate production of insecticide (col. 3, lines 25
to 35; col. 7, line 55, to col. 8, line 10), one of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to substitute open
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007