Appeal No. 1999-1960
Application No. 09/075,631
above, we consider that Frantz teaches away from eliminating
the cycled operation with its time delay function, such that
the examiner's proposed modification is not fairly suggested
by the reference itself. Moreover, we are in accord with
appellant that eliminating the cycled operation in Frantz
would altogether change the principle of operation of the
Frantz drain valve, which is a further indication that the
proposed modification would not have been obvious in light of
the reference teachings. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813,
123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
In light of the foregoing, the standing rejection of the
appealed claims as being unpatentable over Frantz will not be
sustained. Since we hold that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, it is
unnecessary for us to consider appellant’s evidence of
nonobviousness (i.e., the declarations of Love and Lucitti).
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007