Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
position[1] and the specific back pressure
being provided by the nozzles on the material
therein. [Answer, page 3]
With respect to the “fixed” nozzles requirement of the appealed
claims, the examiner expresses his obviousness conclusion as
follows:
Kinsey (Fig. 2) disclose[s] an apparatus
similar to that of Jackson, but wherein the
oppositely oriented nozzles are fixed in a
stationary position. Wherein the use of
fixed nozzles would provide an apparatus that
is less expensive to manufacture, operate,
and maintain, than an apparatus that utilizes
rotating nozzles, it would have been obvious
for an artisan at the time of the invention,
to provide the convergent, high pressure,
nozzles of Jackson, in a fixed, stationary
position, in view of Kinsey, since such
would be cheaper to operate, while still
maintaining highly effective liquid agitation
within the tank. [Answer, page 3; emphasis in
original]
We share the appellant’s fundamental viewpoint that
the applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness vis-à-vis modifying Jackson’s hydraulic agitator so
1 The minority’s contrary claim interpretation is improper
because it is not reasonable and consistent with the specifi-
cation (e.g., see lines 12-15 of page 15). See In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007