Appeal No. 2003-2033
Application No. 09/154,130
tube until the bottom end of the piston extends out of the
discharge opening removes accumulations of fouling material from
the interior surface of the hollow tube, the slot walls, and the
rim of the discharge opening (col. 5, lines 9-22).
The examiner argues (answer, page 3):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to use the
specific liquid distributor of Keller et al. as the
liquid distributor means of Muldowney et al. since it
is merely the selection of liquid distributors known to
be functional in vertical reactors.[2] In addition, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to select the
distributor of Keller et al. as it solves the plugging
problem which is recognized by Muldowney et al.
(col. 8, lines 42-45).[3]
For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as
2 Keller does not disclose that his distributor is functional in a
vertical reactor. Keller’s disclosure is that the distributor is
useful in packed column fractionator units and may find utility for
liquid distribution in other environments (col. 1, lines 48-51).
3 The examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows
that Keller’s piston would be effective for unplugging the holes in
the side of Muldowney’s downpipe.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007