Appeal No. 2006-0010 Page 9
Application No. 10/170,538
asserts that Sang shows all the aspects of the rejected claims Aexcept the specifically
recited gas device configuration, specifically the instantly recited outlet opening and pipe
face sizes or configurations.@ (Answer, p. 4). The Examiner asserts that Aabsent any
demonstrated new or unexpected results arising therefrom, motivation to alter the shape
or configuration of the pipe (17) of Sang et al, without materially altering the operation of
the pipe (17), would have been a modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made.@ (Answer, p. 5).
Regarding claims 29-32 and 36, the Examiner asserts that motivation to multiply
the numbers of a component shown singly in the prior art (i.e., the gas pipes) in order to
produce a multiplied effect, would have been a modification obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Specifically, the Examiner states
A[i]n order to produce a larger quantity of bubbles, motivation to employ 2 or 3 pipes,
rather than the single pipe shown by either of Sang et al . . . , would have been a
modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.@ (Answer, p. 6).
Appellants argue that Sang does not provide any motivation and expectation of
success for modifying the gas outlet openings of the devices disclosed therein, let alone
in the manner as recited in the rejected claims. As to claims 21 and 39, the
independent claims, Appellants argue that none of the claimed features are taught or
suggested by Sang. Regarding claims 29-32 and 36, Appellants argue that Sang does
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007