Appeal No. 2005-1107
Application No. 10/621,201
liquid in a tank (see pages 3 and 4 of appellants'
specification).
Appellants also submit that "the Pope patent actually
teaches away from the present invention since in Pope there is no
attempt or intention to utilize mutiple pairs of plates located
in different areas of the reservoir" (page 10 of Brief, second
paragraph). However, we find that appellants' argument has been
completely refuted by the examiner at page 7 of the Answer.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007