Appeal No. 2007-0379 Page 10
Application No. 10/045,301
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), Boulter “teaches a water-
using unit (16-fig 6) having a cabinet (fig 17-19), treated water source (8-fig 6), a
host system (fig 24,[ ]26), control system (fig 24,[ ]26), and a separate remote
unit coupled to the unit (ice-maker 2028, fig 24, and cooler system 2030-2033,
fig 19).”
According to Boulter,
[t]he present invention consists of a kiosk [2001] . . .[that]
dispenses water in a coin-operated water-dispensing window
[1002, 1003]. Additionally, an ice-dispensing window [2003] allows
the consumer to buy bags of ice made from the purified water. . . .
Kiosks [2001] can be configured with three dispensing windows.
Any combination of water [1002, 1003] and ice dispensing [2003]
windows can be installed.
Column 2, lines 9-34.
As appellant explains, “Boulter shows a traditional approach of
using a treated water system to supply more than one water-using unit.
However, in such a traditional system, the treated water system is a
separate system, not integrated with any of the water-using units through
common cabinetry.” Brief, page 7. We agree.
The examiner argues, however, that Boulter’s water source shares
“at least part of the cabinet such that said treated water source is
integral . . . .” Answer, page 5. According to the examiner (Answer,
page 11), “[t]he kiosk can be a cabinet; it has the water source and the
water-using unit (water dispenser), which meet the limitation of the
claims.” We agree, that the kiosk can be a cabinet. We disagree,
however, that the arrangement of Boulter’s components meet the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013