Appeal No. 1998-1970
Application No. 08/587,134
evidence of a non-clearance relation between the piston and
the cylinder (brief, pp. 5-6.)
We do not find either of appellants’ arguments
convincing. Reviewing the Tarnawski patent and comparing the
subject matter thereof to that set forth in appellants’ claim
13 on appeal, we are in agreement with the examiner’s position
that the sanitary toilet defined in appellants’ claim 13 is
anticipated by the sanitary water closet of Tarnawski. We
agree with the examiner that "the Tarnawski piston moves
relative to the cylinder . . . and therefore must have some
<clearance relation’ therewith.".
(Answer, pg 4.) It is clear to us that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would know that in order for a piston to move
relative to the cylinder, some "clearance" inherently exists
between the pump body and the piston to allow such movement.
We are not convinced by appellants’ argument that
Tarnawski does not inherently disclose a pump with a clearance
piston. In our opinion, the fact that Tarnawski provides an
opening (37) through which water is returned back in the tank
(col. 2, lines 18-23) supports the conclusion that "some"
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007