Appeal No. 95-0423
Application 07/696,859
is found in paragraphs 5 through 8 of Prywes II, wherein
certain activities are alleged to have taken place in the
interval to time between conception of the invention and the
filing of the application. However, as previously noted, no
evidence has been provided in support of these allegations.
Accordingly, diligence has not been establish. It follows
that appellant’s showing of facts is insufficient to overcome
the Ritch patent. See 37 CFR
§ 1.131(b).
Turning now to the merits of the rejections based on
Ritch, we shall not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 20 and
32 as being anticipated by Ritch.
Claim 1 calls for “fluid control means carried by said
shunt means for controlling flow of fluid through the shunt
means from the high pressure chamber to the low pressure
chamber.” Claim 20 contains similar language. Method claim
32 calls for the step of “controlling the flow of fluid
through said shunt . . . to regulate rate of fluid flow
between said chambers.” In attempting to read this claim
language on Ritch, the examiner has taken the position that
the purpose of the Ritch et al. reference is to
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007