Appeal No. 2004-1419
Application 09/733,041
through 22 and 35 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lund in view of Heeb. Absent hindsight gained
from first having read appellant’s disclosure and claims, we find
no teaching, suggestion or motivation for attempting to modify
the nozzle and manually-actuated pump dispenser of Lund in the
manner proposed by the examiner. Indeed, it appears to us that
when read as a whole, Lund would teach against such
modifications.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for review on appeal
is that of claims 1 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Burke. In this instance, the examiner contends
(answer, page 7) that although Burke does not disclose the ratios
set forth in the claims on appeal or the ranges of swirl chamber
diameter, exit area of the channels, or exit orifice diameter, it
would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art,
depending on the product being sprayed and the pressures and
particle size wanted, would determine the above-noted parameters
to be employed “since Burke discloses that these parameters are
important to achieve a desired spray (see column 1, lines 42-57
and column 3, lines 27-40).” Absent hindsight, we see no basis
in the broad teachings of Burke for modifying the nozzle therein
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007