Ex Parte KAMP - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-1766                                                        
          Application 08/891,884                                                      



                    Claim 10 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and            
          it reads as follows:                                                        
                    10.  A method of providing for one-way flow of liquid             
          from a pouch through a pumping mechanism of a chassis of a liquid           
          containment and dispensing device, the chassis having an inlet              
          port in liquid communication with the pouch and the pumping                 
          mechanism, said method comprising:                                          
                    providing a planar valve member within the chassis in             
          alignment with the inlet port to block flow from the pumping                
          mechanism to the pouch when pressure in the pumping mechanism is            
          higher than pressure within the pouch, no portion of the planar             
          valve being heat-staked to the chassis.                                     
                    The references relied on by the examiner are:                     
          Nakata              3,720,473     Mar. 13, 1973                             
          Hirosawa et al. (Hirosawa)       5,523,780       June  4, 1996              
          Clark et al. (Clark)          5,734,401       Mar. 31, 1998                 
                                   (effective filing date Apr. 27, 1995)              


                    Claims 1 through 6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under                 
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark in view of              
          Nakata.                                                                     
                    Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)            
          as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Nakata and Hirosawa.            
                    Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 13 and             
          15) and the answer (paper number 14) for the respective positions           
          of the appellant and the examiner.                                          


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007