Appeal No. 2002-1523
Application 09/524,811
recognizes that the liquid dispensing fitting of Arnold does not
discuss the design parameters of the spout (26), the slot therein
(un-numbered), or the drain aperture (44), he concludes that
[i]t would have been an obvious design choice
to vary the sizes of the slot [designated by
the examiner as N] and the drain back hole 44
according to the viscosity of the fluid. A
higher viscosity would require a larger drain
back hole 44 and slot N for a spill-free
pour, while a lower viscosity would require a
smaller drain back hole 44 and slot N. This
type of obviousness is best explained in MPEP
2144.05, Part II: Optimization of Ranges
(final rejection, page 2).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
concerning the above-noted rejection and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 6,
mailed April 4, 2001) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed November 19, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8, filed
August 27, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007