Appeal No. 2002-0230
Application No. 09/136,070
Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Consequently, the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 15 to 18 and 20 is reversed.
The Examiner contends “the conclusion of obviousness is not based on
hindsight reconstruction but rather basic scientific principles of fluid dynamics and
gravitation forces. It is notoriously well known within the dispensing art that such a
location of a fluid connection hole at the lowest point on the container takes
advantage of the additional effects of gravity upon the volume of the fluid.”
(Answer, pp. 6-7). Rokugawa expressly discloses the reagent phial (70) is secured to
the top of its respective rotary table (64). The reagent phial (70) is positioned so that
the pump (72) has check valve (76) secured to the lower wall of reagent phial (70).
There is no indication that the “effects of gravity upon the volume of the fluid” would
provide a benefit that would have warranted the redesign of Rokugawa’s reagent
distribution mechanism that includes a pump for dispensing the reagent.
The Examiner added the teachings of the Ushikubo reference to the
combination of Rokugawa and Zengerle, as applied to claim 15, to reject the subject
matter of claim 19. We reverse this rejection because Ushikubo does not solve the
deficiencies of Rokugawa discussed above.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007