Appeal No. 2003-0806 Page 8
Application No. 09/219,275
both Martin and Melliger, with regard to the use of mixing jet type nozzles wherein
compressed air is mixed with the coating material, that mixing jet type nozzles were
recognized in the art at the time of appellants’ invention as being different from the type
of sprayer 35 of Imanidis. For example, as pointed out by Martin, one advantage of
using a mixing jet type sprayer is that the air mixed with the particles of solution help
remove foreign particles or dust which may be on the particles to be coated. Inasmuch
as the gas supply which entrains and fluidizes the particles to be coated in Imanidis’
apparatus would seem to achieve such dust removal, the use of a more complicated
mixing jet type sprayer in place of the sprayer 35 of Imanidis would appear to be
unnecessary.
As stated by our reviewing court in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55
USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. Thus,
every element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior art.
However, identification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is
insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed invention. Rather,
to establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements
disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or
teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was
made by the applicant [citations omitted].
In this instance, the examiner has not offered any explanation, and it is not apparent to
us from the combined teachings of Imanidis, Martin and Melliger, why it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the sprayer 35 of Imanidis with
the spraying apparatus of Martin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007