Appeal 2006-2721
Application 09/579,938
apparatus do not have the claimed removable parts coupled with Appellant’s
reason for having such parts, does not constitute effective argument
establishing that one of ordinary skill in this art would not have modified
Reed’s apparatus in this respect. Indeed, Reed would have reasonably
suggested to this person that removable parts facilitate cleaning, which is the
same reason for removability stated by Appellant, and indeed, illustrates that
the spigots are removably coupled to the base of the vessels with a nut.
We noted above that Appellant relies on the same contentions with
respect to the ground of rejection based on the combination of Reed and
Briggs.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Reed and
in the combination of Reed and Briggs with Appellant’s countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 3, 7, 9 through 11, 13 through
19, 21 through 26, and 28 through 33 would have been obvious as a matter
of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
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) (2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013