Appeal No. 2007-0379 Page 14
Application No. 10/045,301
the teaching of Boulter to have the Reverse Osmosis-treated water inside the
bladder for controlling the water stored in the bladder as taught by Voznick
without having significant backpressure and prevent air-borne bacteria, etc. . . .”
Answer, bridging sentence, pages 7-8.
In response, appellant asserts that “Boulter does not teach cooling
proximity, and it does not teach integrating the reservoir with the water-using unit
for this cooling proximity.” Brief, page 11, emphasis removed. We agree.
According to Boulter (column 6, lines 21-35), figure 19 illustrates the kiosk 2001
in a partial cutaway view with the service door 2023 open. . . . A
commercial ice-cube maker 2019 is mounted above the ice bin
2028. . . . An air cooler 2027 circulates cold air inside the ice bin
2028 to prevent melting of the ice. The air cooler 2027 has a
compressor 2030 and a receiver tank 2031. The ice-cube maker
2019 has a compressor 2032 and a receiver tank 2033. The units
2030-2033 are located on the roof of the kiosk 2001 for space
saving and maintainability considerations since the inside of the
kiosk 2001 is filled with a water-purification system as shown in
Figs. 22, 23.
On reflection, contrary to the examiner’s intimation, we find nothing in
Boulter to suggest integrating the reservoir with the water-using unit or to
otherwise place the reservoir in “cooling proximity” to the water-using unit.
Voznick fails to make up for this deficiency in Boulter. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boulter and Voznick.
The combination of Boulter, Voznick and Blades:
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boulter, Voznick, and Blades. The
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013