Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 13
Application No. 08/040,117
funnel-shaped cavity. Harris ‘981 discloses all of the subject
matter recited in claim 19 except for the funnel-shaped cavity.
Each of the secondary references discloses a funnel-shaped
cavity whose purpose is to guide a needle into place for
dispensing liquid into the mouth of another element (Pang,
Abstract and column 3, lines 36-46; Marsoner, column 2, line 38
et seq.). We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a
funnel-shaped cavity above the valve in the filling system of
Harris ‘981, suggestion being found in the explicit teachings
of each of the two secondary references that such would offer
the advantage of guiding the needle into alignment with the
element to which the liquid is to be communicated. While this
is not for the same purpose as the funnel-shaped cavity in the
appellants’ invention, the prior art teachings relied upon need
not disclose the same advantage that the appellants allege, for
all that is required is that there is a reasonable suggestion
to combine the references. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
1304, 190 USPQ 425, 427-428 (CCPA 1976); and Ex parte Obiaya,
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007