Appeal No. 2003-2113 Page 9
Application No. 09/712,582
to the second difference, the examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that such difference
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
skill in the art from the teachings of Groll. We do not agree. In our view, the applied
prior art does not make it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have provided either (1) a non-porous, straight wire movably
positioned within the through hole such that a narrow space is formed between an inner
wall of the partition wall forming the through hole and a side portion of the straight wire
so as to cause sufficient capillary action; or (2) a non-porous, straight wire mesh
movably positioned within the through hole such that a narrow space is formed
between an inner wall of the partition wall forming the through hole and a side portion of
the straight wire mesh so as to cause sufficient capillary action. In that regard, we note
for example that the wire mesh 18 shown in Figure 9 of Groll is fixedly positioned within
the through hole, not movably positioned within the through hole.
Since the applied prior art is not suggestive of the claimed subject matter for the
reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3, 6 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007