Appeal 2006-2643
Application 09/771,092
the other hand, discloses an apparatus and method for dispensing drops of
biological materials, and Ford expressly teaches that to ensure a good prime
for the dispenser, the dispenser should be tapped, or struck, to dislodge “any
trapped air” (col. 27, ll. 1-6). Also, as pointed out by the Examiner, the
present specification acknowledges that it was known in the art for a doctor
to tap the side of a loaded syringe to remove air bubbles (see Specification 2,
third paragraph). In addition, we agree with the Examiner that it was
notoriously well known in the art to remove air bubbles for the effective
operation of dispensing systems, in general. Accordingly, although Ford is
not directed to a pulse jet system for dispensing fluid, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to employ a conventional means, such as striking or tapping, to remove air
bubbles from a fluid dispensing system.
The principal argument advanced by Appellant is that Bares and Ford
are from non-analogous arts and, therefore, not combinable. However,
while it cannot be gainsaid that the dispensing systems of Bares and Ford
have different structures and modes of operation, we concur with the
Examiner that they are analogous art since they are both in the field of
dispensing fluid and both are reasonably pertinent to the problem of
dispensing the fluid effectively. Moreover, even without the disclosure of
Ford, we are satisfied that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to resort to the well-known technique of tapping or striking
the dispenser of fluid for removing problematic air bubbles therefrom. To
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007