Appeal No. 97-3097
Application 08/030,488
Secondly, we disagree with the examiner’s finding that
“the scope of Waters includes measurement of the dome
protrusion in both directions [inward/concave and
outward/convex]” (answer, page 10). Waters does disclose
means for detecting a convex configuration of the diaphragm,
in that the top of the container is provided with a dome 16
into which the diaphragm expands when the pressure in the
container increases, and is detected by light source 52 and
photodetector 48; however, we find no disclosure or suggestion
of any means for detecting an inward (concave) configuration
(assuming that such configuration were possible). The
examiner evidently bases the above-quoted finding on Waters’
disclosure at column 3, lines 9 to 13, that the central area
of the diaphragm is “easily movable by pressure differences
across the membrane to a plurality of positions including that
of a dome protruding in the direction of lower pressure”
(examiner’s emphasis). However, we do not take this to be a
disclosure that the dome would extend into the container, but
rather, read in context, the “lower pressure” to which this
language refers is the pressure outside the container, when
the pressure within the container has become greater than the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007