Appeal No. 1997-2118
Application No. 08/119,163
1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
It is the Majority's opinion that the Examiner is merely
speculating that the Landa canister will be cheaper to
manufacture and will result in a canister that is simple to
operate. The majority also places great weight on the
Examiner's comment that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to place the dispensing valve 68 in
Uhlig on the opposite end of the dispenser 55 to use the force
of gravity to aid in dispensing of the liquid as suggested by
Landa.
While I agree with the Majority that the Examiner's
statements are misleading, I note that the Examiner states on
page 8 of the Examiner's Answer that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
Landa container 66 shown in Figure 2 by replacing the Landa's
mechanical pressure means 72, 74 and 88 with the Uhlig's
pressure means 64, 65 and
63 shown in Figure 8 to obtain Appellants' claimed invention.
The Examiner’s stated reason that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have a desirability to do this modification is to
reduce the cost of manufacturing the dispenser system.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007