Appeal No. 2007-0379 Page 12
Application No. 10/045,301
reverse the rejection of claims 20-25, 27,and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Boulter.
The combination of Boulter and Credle:
Claims 26 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boulter and Credle. Claims 26 and 28-30
ultimately depend from claim 20.
The examiner contends that Boulter “teaches all the limitations of
claim 20.” Answer, page 8. The examiner finds that “[c]laims 26 and 28-30 add
further limitations as follows: beverage dispenser as in instant claims 26 and 28.”
Id. While the examiner does not so state, it appears that the examiner is of the
opinion that Boulter does not teach a beverage dispenser. Therefore, the
examiner relies on Credle to make up for this deficiency in Boulter. According to
the examiner (id.), “Creddle [sic] teaches a water-using unit with a beverage
dispenser as in instant claims 26 and 28. . . .” Based on these findings the
examiner asserts that “[i]t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to have the Boulter R/O system coupled/connected to the
beverage dispenser of Creddle [sic]. . . to have a filtered fluid before dispensing
as taught by Creddle [sic].” Id.
For the reasons set forth above, we disagree with the examiner’s
assertion that Boulter teaches all the limitations of claim 20. We find nothing in
inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to defeat patentability—the
essence of hindsight.”).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013