Appeal No. 2005-0981
Application No. 09/848,665 Page 7
such as taught by Stoddart to preserve the furrows. However,
even if one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have viewed degradation of the furrows of Sesser
as a problem to be solved2, the examiner’s reliance on Stoddart
as a potential solution to that problem is misplaced. In this
regard, in addition to the reasons set forth above, the notched
over flow vessel of Stoddart was clearly not designed for furrow
irrigation as evident by the highly placed notches and solid pegs
of Stoddart, which are clearly not compatible with the release of
water to the ground while avoiding or minimizing evaporative
losses as desired by Sesser. See pages 3-5 of the reply brief.
For reasons similar to those discussed above and for reasons
as set forth in the brief at pages 13 and 14, the examiner has
not established how Sesser alone or in combination with Stoddart
would have suggested employing a water receiving receptacle as
required by independent claim 45.
2 We note that the examiner has not furnished any evidence
of recognition of such a problem with the furrows of Sesser by
one of ordinary skill in the art. Nor has the examiner furnished
persuasive evidence suggesting that a trough with fluid
passageways as claimed, would have been recognized by one of
ordinary skill in the art as an obvious solution to such an
irrigation problem.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007