Appeal No. 2000-1120
Application 09/095,205
claims, with the exception that each of these primary references
does not utilize a barley twist mechanism for imparting
rotational movement to the mixing member while providing linear
motion.
However, as pointed out by the examiner on page 17 of the
answer, Chan and Gunnarsson teach to combine rotational movement
of the mixing member with up and down motion (reciprocal motion).
Blasnik teaches to combine these movements by utilizing a barley
twist mechanism.
We note that the prior art can be modified or combined to
reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a
reasonable expectation of success. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here,
we determine that one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to utilize a barley twist mechanism disclosed in
Blasnik with a reasonable expectation of success of providing
rotational movement of the mixing member found in each of the
primary references while providing linear motion. Appellants'
arguments (as summarized above) do not convince us that such a
substitution carries such a degree of uncertainty of success that
the skilled artisan would have been dissuaded from making the
substitution. We emphasize that if one skilled in the art wanted
to provide reciprocal and rotational movement (as taught, e.g.,
in Chan and Gunnarsson), one skilled in the art would have found
it obvious to have selected a barley twist mechanism to do so,
because Blasnik teaches that a barley twist mechanism provides
for such movement.1
1 With respect to claims 16 and 20, we agree with the examiner's statements made on
pages 18-19 of the answer, that (1) Chan and Gunnarsson teach use of air tight seals,
and (2) appellants' arguments are unconvincing regarding whether one skilled in the
art would achieve an air tight seal with a barley twist mechanism.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007