Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
few, simple parts” (column 1, line 25). This stated objective
indicates that patentee’s rotating nozzle assembly is necessary
to achieve Jackson’s desideratum “to effectively and uniformly
mix and agitate” (column 1, line 22). Stated otherwise, Jackson
would not have used a rotating nozzle assembly if it were
possible to achieve his desire for effective and uniform
agitation with an agitator tank having fewer and simpler parts
(e.g., via a fixed nozzle assembly) in accordance with his
aforementioned objective. In addition, it is significant that
the fixed nozzle modification proposed by the examiner would have
resulted in loss of the agitating function provided by paddles 90
(see Fig. 1 and the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5). This
further militates against the examiner’s contention that his
proposed modification would maintain “highly effective liquid
agitation within the tank” (Answer, page 3) pursuant to the level
of agitation desired by Jackson.
It is also appropriate to reiterate the appellant’s
point that the examiner’s obviousness conclusion is undermined
by the fact that the proposed modification of Jackson would
change the principle of operation of patentee’s hydraulic
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007