Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
the ‘straw’ tip of the pump shaft via routine experimentation”
(final rejection, pg. 7). Appellants merely argue that none of
the applied prior art teaches or suggests that the distance
between the tube/pipe and the vessel side surface is about
2-3 mm. To this, the examiner points out on page 7 of the
answer, that appellants fail to address the rejection with
regard to determining the optimum arrangement of the elements
due to routine experimentation. We agree with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in this art would have been led by the
teachings of Dobilas, Junghans, Sukhin and Hughes to arrive at
the spacing of “about 2-3 mm” as an optimum distance between the
vessel side wall and the lower end of the pump shaft so as to
maximize use of substantially all of the medicant, as expressly
indicated in Hughes. More specifically, we note that the surface
14 of Hughes can be considered a side surface to the degree
appellants disclose side surface 65. Common sense would have led
an ordinarily skilled artisan to provide a reasonable distance
between the side surface and the bottom of the pump shaft close
enough such that all of the medicant can be utilized. However,
the side surface and the pump shaft should also not come
into contact with one another in order to prevent any obstruction
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007