Appeal No. 2000-1338
Application 09/107,241
obvious manner of accomplishing Du Plooy’s suggestion of
pressurizing and expelling water from the liquid compartment
18.
In light of the foregoing, the combined teachings of Du
Plooy and the two Hall patents justify the examiner’s
conclusion that the differences between the subject matter
recited in claims 1 through 3, 13 and 14 and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
3, 13 and 14 is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007