Appeal No. 2005-2077
Application No. 10/046,564
§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide any reason of motivation for
combining the Henderson and Miyazaki references. (Brief, pages 13-14).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Both the Henderson and Miyazaki
references describe systems that rely on the transportation (pumping) of fluid through the
apparatus. The Miyazaki reference is described as an improvement on micro pump
technology. (Note columns 1 and 2). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to utilize the pumping mechanism described by Miyazaki and the apparatus
of Henderson in order to obtain the advantages stated by the Examiner and expressed in the
Miyazaki reference.
Appellants argue that the Henderson and Miyazaki references teach away from any
combination. (Brief, pages 14 and 5). This argument is not persuasive for the reasons
expressed above.
Appellants’ arguments (Brief, page 10) regarding the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 and
20 have been noted. For each of the stated rejections the Appellants state their
understanding as to the Examiner’s basis of citing the additional prior art references.
However, Appellants have not argued that the teachings of the cited references could not be
utilized with the teaching of Henderson and Miyazaki as proposed by the Examiner. The
Examiner has presented factual determinations regarding the suitability of adding the
additional prior art references (see Answer, pages 4-5). These determinations are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007