Appeal No. 2001-2625 Page 9
Application No. 09/458,052
the dip tube being 'seatingly held by said plug.'" Next, the
examiner concluded (answer, p. 6) that in view of the
teachings of Chester, "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to associate a plug seat (and vent
hole 40) with the Shay dip tube as being an art recognized
equivalent method of providing an air flow passage in a dip
tube."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 13-14) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We
agree.
Claims 5 to 20 under appeal require the dip tube (i.e.,
Shay's down tube element 32') to be seatingly held by the plug
(i.e., Shay's dispensing head 18'). In our view, the
teachings of Chester would not have been suggestive to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shay's
down tube element 32' to be seatingly held by his dispensing
head 18' since Shay teaches that air flows (as indicated in
Figure 8 of Shay) into the open upper end of down tube element
32' and then up dip tube 30' and out discharge nozzle 24'.
Chester would not have suggested any modification to the way
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007