Appeal No. 2005-1035
Application No. 09/800,153
Notwithstanding this consideration, it is apparent that the
Examiner should carefully review the teachings of the Appellant’s
prior art patents described on page 2 of the subject specification
in order to determine whether one or both of these teachings in
combination with the teachings of Jackson would have suggested
to one having ordinary skill in this art modifying Jackson’s
centralized fumigation system so as to replace the single fogging
nozzle per tube (i.e., tube 51) arrangement thereof with a
plurality of fluid discharge openings spaced along the tubes in
accordance with the teachings of the Appellant’s prior art patents.
From our perspective, an artisan would have been motivated by these
last mentioned teachings to so modify Jackson’s system in order
to release pesticide into each wall void (e.g., see lines 1-16 in
column 4 of U.S. Patent No. 4,944,110). Such a provision would
have been desirable or even necessary when using Jackson’s system
for fumigating a building, such as a multiple story building,
having a plurality of vertically spaced wall voids.
Therefore, in response to this remand, the Examiner must
determine, and make of record the results of this determination,
the propriety of rejecting at least appealed independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson in view
of one or both of the Appellant’s prior art patents discussed
above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007