Appeal No. 2004-2007 Page 4
Application No. 10/014,838
disclosed or taught by Carr, except for the gauge body having a bottom that
corresponds with the bottom of the bottle, and the edge of the device being shaped the
same as the bottle with a corresponding scale to determine the amount of liquid in a
specially shaped bottle (Answer, page 4). However, it is the examiner’s view that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Carr scale in
such a manner as to meet the terms of the claim in view of the teachings of Marcussen.
The appellant advances several arguments in opposition to this conclusion, and we find
ourselves in agreement with the appellant that the rejection should not be sustained.
Our reasoning follows.
Carr discloses a device comprising a pair of standards (6 and 7), each of which
is graduated into a scale for measuring the amount of liquid present in “standard bottles
of different sizes” (page 1, lines 53 and 54). It would appear from the disclosure that
“standard” bottles are intended to be bottles having straight parallel vertical sides and a
cross-section that is constant over essentially the entire height of the bottle that is to be
filled with liquid, and that bottles of various heights can be accommodated between the
standards. It also is clear from the disclosure that the spacing of the scale does not
change, which in our view would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
cross-sectional area of the bottle will remain the same over the height to be filled (see
Figure 2). Thus, Carr does not disclose a gauge that can accurately reflect the amount
of liquid remaining in a bottle having a cross-sectional area that varies along the height
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007