Appeal No. 97-3097
Application 08/030,488
Considering first the rejection of claims 1 and 12, the
initial issue is whether the diaphragm 32 of Waters can move
to a concave configuration, and if so, whether such
configuration is detected. The examiner, from the remarks in
the second paragraph on page 10 of the answer, appears to be
of the opinion that it can.
We believe that the examiner has misconstrued Waters’
disclosure. In the first place, it appears to be virtually
impossible, from a physical standpoint, for the Waters
diaphragm 32 to move to a concave configuration, since it is
underlain by disk 24, described as “substantially rigid”
(column 4, line 15). At most, if the pressure in the
container were to fall low enough, the diaphragm 32 might
protrude downward (inward) through hole 26 in disk 24,
although hole 26 is shown as being of a much smaller diameter
than the diameter of the diaphragm 32. We note, however, that
such inward movement of the diaphragm is evidently not
contemplated by Waters, who appears to be concerned only with
detecting microorganisms which generate gas and cause a
pressure increase in the container (column 5, lines 44 to 48).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007