Appeal No. 1999-2632
Application 08/707,097
Tieke dispenser to any degree greater than Tieke’s remote
biasing means. Further, the references do not establish that
the “spring back” elements respectively disclosed therein are
art recognized functional equivalents. Even if functional
equivalence were established, however, it would not be
dispositive of the obviousness issue at bar. Expedients which
are functionally equivalent to each other are not necessarily
obvious in view of one another. In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016,
1019, 139 USPQ 297, 299 (CCPA 1963). Finally, the examiner’s
determination that the proposed modification of the Tieke
dispenser would reduce its manufacturing cost has no factual
support in the record.
Although the Tieke and Meshberg devices are both
“dispensers” in a broad sense, they are designed to dispense
decidedly different products in decidedly different ways.
Given the disparate natures of these devices and the
unconvincing rationale advanced by the examiner, we are led to
conclude that the proposed combination of Tieke and Meshberg
is based on an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007