Appeal 2006-2292
Application 10/439,565
cylinder with a narrower opening (Answer 3). “[I]t is well established that
the mere change of relative size of the co-acting members of a known
combination will not endow an otherwise unpatentable combination with
patentability.” In re Troiel, 274 F.2d 944, 949, 124 USPQ 502, 505 (CCPA
1960). Accordingly, Appellant’s mere changing of the relative size of the
regulator as compared to the inlet orifice size (i.e., co-acting members) of
the known combination of a “regulator in a bottle” as disclosed by Wang
(Wang, col. 4, l. 57) does not endow the combination with patentability. Id.
Therefore, we affirm the following rejections: (1) the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-10 over Wang in view of Brown, and (2) the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-10 over Wang in view of Kder.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
cam
McAndrews Held & Malloy, LTD
500 West Madison Street
Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60661
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013