Appeal No. 1997-2118
Application No. 08/119,163
and reduce the cost of manufacturing the Landa toner dispenser
66, 70 (Figures 1 and 2, respectively) by using a fluid
pressure means and cooperating valve means as taught by Uhlig
in lieu of the mechanical pressure means 72, 74 and 88 (Figure
2) of Landa. The examiner also concludes (Answer, pages 9
through 11) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to place the dispensing valve 68 in Uhlig
(Figure 8) on the opposite end of the dispenser 55 to use the
forces of gravity to aid in the dispensing of the liquid as
suggested by Landa.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 16) that the examiner has
not presented a convincing line of reasoning that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two
references to arrive at the claimed invention. According to
the appellants (Brief, pages 12, 17 and 18; Reply Brief, pages
6 and 8) there is a complete lack of motivation for making any
of the modifications proposed by the examiner. Appellants
additionally argue (Brief, page 15) that “the only teaching or
suggestion that would lead one having ordinary skill in the
art to arrive at Appellants’ invention is within Appellants’
disclosure.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007