Appeal No. 2005-0981
Application No. 09/848,665 Page 6
distribute liquids in fine streams or drops (Stoddart, lines 9-
12)” (answer, page 4). However, the examiner’s proposed
combination of Stoddart and Sesser is untenable for reasons set
forth by appellant (brief, pages 8-12).
In this regard, we note that Stoddart is directed to a
distributor for liquids that is particularly designed to be
employed in delivering liquids onto filter beds. In the gutter
like distributor of Stoddart, the gutter is filled with liquid in
a manner such that liquid flows over margins (sides) of the
gutter via notches (c, figures 1-3) and onto pegs (b) and then
into a receiving vessel. See lines 21-24 of the specification of
Stoddart. As correctly noted by appellants, Sesser is concerned
with applying water directly into a furrow for irrigating plants.
The examiner simply has not identified a logical rationale that
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a
combination of the over-flow gutter type liquid distributor of
Stoddart with the furrow irrigation system of Sesser in a manner
so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
The examiner proffers an alternative rationale to the effect
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
the furrows of Sesser would degrade over time and would thus have
been motivated to employ other structures made of wood or metal,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007