Appeal No. 1998-1970
Application No. 08/587,134
water escapes through a "clearance" between the piston and the
pump body for ejection back into the tank. This is all that
the broad language of appellants’ independent claim 13
requires.
Appellants’ further argue that Tarnawski discloses a
tight fitting piston that forcibly injects water into the bowl
is
equally unconvincing. As a preliminary matter, we find no
mention in Tarnawski of a tight-fit or sealing arrangement
between the piston and the pump body and appellants have
pointed to none. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
know that a given level of force from the pump is required to
inject the water into the bowl such that the water travels
with a circular motion around the interior of the bowl as the
bowl is being flushed. Furthermore, appellants’ claim 13
indicates that the piston is downwardly moveable within the
pump body toward the pump outlet so as to "force water" from
the pump body through the pump outlet (claim 13, lines 15-16).
Thus, the mere indication in Tarnawski that the water is
forcibly injected into the bowl, in no way serves to
distinguish the water closet of Tarnawski from that set forth
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007