Appeal No. 1998-0484 Page 6
Application No. 08/675465
This is coupled with a downwardly diminishing cross-sectional area from the circular inlet
opening to the oblong outlet opening (column 5). Barker discloses a glass feeder
apparatus with a single discharge opening rather than the multiple openings found in
Kirkman. Barker’s spout bowl has a circular inlet opening and an oblong outlet opening,
with the outlet opening being “within” the inlet opening, in the manner required by the
appellant’s claim 1. However, the mere fact that the Kirkman structure could be modified
does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of
doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Quite
frankly, we are unable to appreciate the relevance of the examiner’s statement, apparently
made to justify the proposed combination of references, that one of ordinary skill in the art
would do so because of “the reasonable expectation of providing for the discharge of
molten glass from the spout bowl and to control the flow of glass and to deliver a uniform
glass gob from the feeder” (final rejection, Paper No. 15, page 5). In any event, it is our
view that the artisan would not have been motivated to substitute the Barker arrangement
for that disclosed by Kirkman because it would result in a wholesale makeover of the glass
discharge spout of Kirkman, and that would appear, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, to destroy the Kirkman invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007