Appeal No. 2000-0327 Page 8
Application No. 08/745,330
water were measured, and the flow was very low, Thompson would
have kept the water on until the tub was full. But Thompson
does not do this, as Thompson does not determine the volume of
the water flowing in a pipe.
We therefore agree with appellant (brief, page 5) that
Thompson cannot distinguish one flow rate from another.
Accordingly, we find that Thompson does not anticipate claims
1, 2, 11, and 12. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 16,
17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Thompson. With respect to claims 3, 4, 13, 14, and 16, as
these claims depend from independent claims 1 or 11, the
rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is reversed. With respect to independent claim 19,
the claim contains similar language to claim 1, with respect
to "determining the volume of water that flows through the
pipe during a single period of continuous flow." Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 19, and claims 20 and 21, which depend
therefrom, falls for the same reason as claims 1 and 11, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007