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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007