Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). I
am further of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have arrived at such a substantially semicircular nozzle
arrangement using one or more angle or elbow fittings 28 for the
same nozzle. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378,
380 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of
parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected
result is produced, and we are of the opinion that such is not
the case here.”).
Therefore, based on the substantial evidence in Jackson
and in Vretman, I would affirm the ground of rejection of
appealed claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because as a
matter of law, the claimed “diffuser” encompassed in each of
these claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
this art over the combined teachings of Jackson and Vretman.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the
examiner.
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
Todd Deveau
21
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007