Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 10
Application No. 08/040,117
any fashion, for two reasons. First, the container is closed
by a septum 66 through which the two needles protrude, so even
if the container were to be totally filled with liquid it is
prevented by the septum from overflowing its brim. Second, the
container cannot be totally filled by liquid in view of the
fact that once the level of the liquid rises to the point where
it reaches the open end of return flow needle 51, the maximum
filling level has been reached, for the continuing flow of
liquid into the container through needle 50 would pass out of
the container through needle 51.
From our perspective, therefore, Peterson does not
disclose or teach means for causing the liquid to flow into the
container until it overflows. This deficiency is not cured by
considering Golias, which has been cited by the examiner for
its teaching of a mechanism for raising and lowering the
needles to puncture the container. It is our conclusion that
the combined teachings of Peterson and Golias fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of independent claim 11 or, it follows, of claims 16 and
17, which depend therefrom. This being the case, we will not
sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007