Ex parte Bussiere

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 15, 1999

08457045 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 1999)

Application for patent filed June 1, 1995.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JOHN BUSSIERE
__________
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,0451
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
John Bussiere appeals from the final rejection of claims
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,045
An English language translation of this reference,2
prepared by the Patent and Trademark Office, is appended
hereto.
An English language translation of this reference is3
appended to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 7).
2
1 through 22, all of the claims pending in the application.
We reverse.
The invention relates to "a correction fluid dispenser of
the pencil or pen type as is generally employed for correcting
typewriter or other printed errors" (specification, page 1).
A copy of the appealed claims appears in the appendix to the
appellant's brief (Paper No. 7).
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Grund 1,485,181 Feb. 26, 1924
Balme 461,361 Dec. 27, 1913
French Patent (French Patent '361)2
Bunoust 964,045 Jul. 31, 1950
French Patent (French Patent '045)3
Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,045
3
as being unpatentable over French Patent '045 in view of
French Patent '361 and Grund.
Reference is made to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 7)
and to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 8) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of this rejection.
French Patent '045, the examiner's primary reference,
discloses a ballpoint tip which is adapted to be mounted on a
pen
body having an ink reservoir. As shown in the drawing
figures, the tip includes an orifice with a circular rim
opening into a tubular passage, a spherical ball adjacent the
circular rim, a flow metering valve means/body defining a
plurality of axial cavities with the wall of the tubular
passage and having a substantially planar forwardly facing
surface contacting the rearwardmost surface of the ball, and
means for biasing the valve member into contact with the ball.
This fluid dispenser meets, or would have suggested, all of
the limitations in independent claim 1 except for the one
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,045
4
requiring "means disposed adjacent the periphery of said valve
member planar forwardly facing surface for centering said ball
on said surface." The examiner's reliance on Grund to
overcome this deficiency is not well founded.
Grund discloses a marking pen having a tip which includes
a circular opening 17, a ball 20, and a spring-biased thrust
bearing for urging the ball into the opening. The thrust
bearing contacts the ball through bearing balls 23 which
provide the sole rearward support for the ball (see Figure 2).
Grund teaches that "[b]y the provision of the roller thrust
bearing, great freedom of motion is permitted to the ball [20]
enabling the operator to write or draw with great facility"
(page 2, lines 8 through 12).
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ballpoint tip
disclosed by French Patent '045 with centering means in the
form of bearing balls such as those disclosed by Grund to gain
the writing/drawing facilitation benefit noted by Grund (see
page 3 in the answer). As indicated above, however, Grund's
bearing balls provide the sole rearward support for writing
ball 20. Thus, they do not center the ball on any surface
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,045
5
rearward of the ball. To the extent that Grund would have
suggested incorporating bearing balls into the ballpoint tip
disclosed by French Patent '045, there would be no motivation
to dispose the bearing balls so as to center the writing ball
on the planar forwardly facing surface of the valve
member/body disclosed by French Patent '045 in the manner
required by claim 1. The only suggestion to combine these two
references so as to meet the claim limitation in question
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant's own teachings. French Patent '361, cited for its
disclosure of a pen tip having a spring and a cap, does not
cure this shortcoming in the examiner's evidence of
obviousness.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 through 22 which
depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over French Patent '045 in
view of French Patent '361 and Grund.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,045
6
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/pgg
Owen J. Meegan
24 North Street
Salem MA 01970
Appeal No. 98-1196
Application 08/457,045
7