Appeal No. 2005-0335 Page 5
Application No. 09/569,645
While it is true that Hurst’s cantilever sprayer arrangement is considered by Hurst
to be an improvement over a longitudinally moving arch sprayer apparatus, the
problems addressed by Hurst were carriage overruns which led to problems with the
power and liquid supply lines and disturbance of the timing of the changes in spray
liquid and spray pattern (col. 2, lines 4-16). There is no indication in Hurst that wheel
binding or nonuniform spraying was a problem and, likewise, no evidence that the
problems solved by Hurst in the arch sprayer type car washing devices exist in the
AAPA printing system. The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not
have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Finding no suggestion in the teachings of the AAPA and Hurst to modify the
AAPA apparatus to provide a cantilever arrangement so as to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1 and 19, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims or dependent claims 2-4, 10, 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over the AAPA in view of Hurst.1
The examiner’s application of Burgess for its teaching of a pneumatic drive
provides no cure for the above-discussed deficiency of the combination of the AAPA
1 It is thus unnecessary for us to discuss the Walker declaration in any detail herein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007