Appeal No. 2000-1359 Page 7
Application No. 08/351,613
Plechinger explicitly describes his device as creating a jet-suction effect between the
nozzle and the entrance to the discharge passage.
We therefore will sustain the Section 103 rejection of independent claim 80 and
the claims depending therefrom which are rejected on the same grounds.
Independent claim 81 requires that the high pressure fluid emanating from the
first passage be “greater than approximately 500 psi.” In this regard, the examiner
points out Plechinger’s teaching that the pressure in his device can be as high as 150
bar, which is 2175 psi. The appellants have not disputed this finding, but have merely
argued that Plechinger requires a diffuser, wherein their invention does not. As we
explained above, we do not regard this argument as being persuasive. The rejection of
claim 81 and those claims depending therefrom is sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 103
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior
art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993)). This is not to say, however, that the claimed invention must expressly be
suggested in any one or all of the references, rather, the test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art (see, for example, Cable Elec. Prods. v. Genmark, 770 F.2d 1015, 1025,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007