Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
motivation, to regulate/control the flow, can be found in Packard at column
3, lines 20-23” (Answer para. bridging 21-22).
In reply, Appellants again rely on the general argument that the cited
combination fails to include all of the limitations of the rejected claim
(Reply Br. 11).
We have addressed this general argument with respect to claims 10,
13 and 18 and are unpersuaded by it for reasons discussed above. We add
the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
In addressing Appellants’ arguments concerning a lack of disclosure,
teaching or suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner particularly
points to column 3, lines 20-23 of Packard, which specifically states that “a
slide plate is so mounted that any one of a series of orifices or openings
therethrough may be located to control the flow of liquid into the spray
nozzle.” Appellants have presented no arguments addressing the motivation
highlighted by the Examiner other than a conclusory statement that the
combination fails to meet the limitations of claim 6.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that “it would have been obvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
provided the metering disc of Packard to the device of Norman to
regulate/control the flow [of the fluid from the cartridge]” (Answer para.
bridging 15-16).
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 6.
Claims 22 and 30 depend from claims 19 and 27, respectively, the
rejections of which have not been sustained. Accordingly, we will also not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 22 and 30 for the reasons
presented above.
19
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007