Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 21
Application No. 08/094,461
On pages 34-35 and 37 of the brief and page 8 of the
reply brief, the appellant argues that the low-pressure pump
recited in claims 13 and 20 is not suggested by the applied7
prior art since the pump 78 of Raymond is a high-pressure
pump. We do not agree. In our view, the claimed a low-
pressure pump reads on the pump 69 of McEachern since (1) the
appellant's disclosure does not specify the pressure at which
their low-pressure pump 32 operates, (2) the pump 69 of
McEachern would appear to operate at a pressure much lower
than Raymond's pump 78, and (3) the pump 69 of McEachern would
need to operate only at a pressure sufficient to assure
circulation of the fluid through the system. Thus, it is our
opinion that the combined teachings of the applied prior art
as combined above would have included a low-pressure pump as
suggested and taught by McEachern.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 10, 11, 13
7Claim 20 recites circulating means which as disclosed in
the specification is a low-pressure pump.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007