Appeal No. 2006-1798
Application No. 09/966,413
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The Examiner’s position is that Pappas expressly discloses all of the elements of
claim 1 with the exception of the limitation that the wick support is attached to the
sheet (answer, pages 3-4). With respect to this limitation, the examiner notes that
Figure 13 of Pappas shows the wick support (116) attached to a pedestal (112),
which is not considered part of the plate/sheet (114). The examiner finds (answer,
page 4) that the pedestal functions as one mechanism for raising the wick above the
fuel to starve the candle of fuel and extinguish the flame (col. 4 lines 30-32). The
Examiner notes (answer, page 4) Pappas’ disclosure that the function of raising the
wick above the fuel may also be performed through the use of a taller wick support
(col. 4 lines 2-22 and figures 2-4, 9, and 10). The Examiner considers that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pedestal from Figure 13 could
be eliminated by using a taller wick support. The Examiner states (id.) that when
the pedestal from Figure 13 is replaced with a taller wick support, that the claimed
invention is arrived at because the wick support would then be directly attached to
plate/sheet (114).
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 6 and 7) that the modification presented by the
Examiner would not have been obvious to the skilled worker in light of the Pappas
reference. Rather, Appellant alleges that it is a modification guided by Appellant’s
teachings (id.).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 7) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not be motivated to combine the different embodiments of Pappas in the manner
suggested by the Examiner. It is argued that none of the freestanding candle
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013