Appeal 2006-2860
Application 10/737,502
also recognize that the pump described at Fig. 8 of Ozama circulates the
water from the pump 9 which is placed below the water surface up through
the water pipe (18) to a fountain top (13) which distributes the liquid above
the water surface. As such, even if we were to combine the teachings of
Ozama with that of Weber, the result would be the addition of a pump
(disclosed by Ozama) that circulates the liquid from the bottom of the tank
to a return fountain mechanism that distributes the liquid above the liquid
level of the inlet chamber. Thus, even if we were to combine the references
as suggested by the Examiner we would not meet the limitations of claim 1.
As such, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness in this rejection because the combination of Weber and Ozama
fail to teach or suggest every element of the claimed invention. The
Examiner has not identified a teaching or suggestion within the cited
references or within the general knowledge of those skilled in the art that
would have led one skilled in the art to make the combination suggested.
Based upon consideration of the totality of the record before us we
reverse the Examiner's rejection based on § 103(a).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007