Appeal No. 1996-1561 Page 5
Application No. 08/230,075
what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art,
including not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom (see In re Boe,
355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
We find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that all
of the subject matter recited in independent claim 1 is
disclosed by Preston, except for the manner in which Preston’s
restriction member (regulator 44) is mounted on the end of the
flexible bowl refill tube (42). In Preston, this is
accomplished by means of an annular protrusion around the
upstream end of the restriction member which is of greater
diameter than the inside of the bore of the flexible tube,
whereby pressing the end of the restriction member into the
tube distends the tube to hold the member in place (see Figure
10). The system recited in claim 1 differs, in that it
requires that the restriction member be provided with screw
threads for the same purpose.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007