Appeal No. 2001-1360
Application 09/290,056
motor for driving the shaft and an electrical power
means such as a battery for operating the motor
[column 1, lines 47 through 57].
In rejecting claims 21 and 22, the examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
“to make [Itzel’s] second port diameter greater than the first
port to accommodate a larger fill spout” (answer, page 8) and
“to incorporate the fan of Junkel et al. to the device of Itzel
et al. to cool and atomize the mist spray” (answer, page 8).
As so modified, Itzel’s spray misting device would meet all of
the limitations in claims 21 and 22.
The appellants do not dispute the obviousness of the first
modification, but do argue that the rejection is nonetheless
unsound because
Junkel does not teach or suggest the construction of
a spray misting device including first and second
fill ports and, conversely, neither does Itzel teach
or suggest a separable fan attachment unit. It is
again respectfully submitted that the mere statement
that it would be obvious to combine the references
together to reconstruct the claimed device, and
absent some suggestion or teaching in the respective
references in support of the combination, is
insufficient to show obviousness of the claimed
device [brief, page 12].
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007