Appeal 2007-0236
Application 09/934,474
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection
based on Murphy in view of Chamberlin of claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, and
19 which are directed to Appellants’ Figure 7 embodiment.
Regarding independent claim 1 and the other claims directed to the
Figure 8 embodiment, the Examiner points to column 5, lines 51-61, of
Murphy wherein patentee teaches an embodiment that includes dispensing
ingredients into a container which is used to collect the liquids for further
dispensing onto the polishing pad (Answer 4). According to the Examiner,
the mixing unit limitations of the claims under review would be met by
modifying this embodiment so that ingredients would be dispensed into
Murphy's container in the form of a sprayed mist as taught by Chamberlin
(id.). The Examiner's obviousness position on this matter is not well taken.
We agree with the Examiner that modifying the column 5
embodiment of Murphy in view of Chamberlin as proposed above would
yield the invention of appealed claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion is that an artisan would have had no apparent reason
to so combine these reference teachings. In this regard, we emphasize that
the advantages of Chamberlin's invention relate to spraying a mist of
polishing solution onto a polishing pad. These advantages would not result
from spraying a mist of polishing ingredients into the container of Murphy.
Therefore, in the absence of impermissible hindsight, no reason exists for
combining these teachings of Murphy and Chamberlin as proposed by the
Examiner.
We reverse the § 103 rejection based on Murphy in view of
Chamberlin of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013