Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
that these arrangements are functionally
equivalent. As such, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have replaced the non-linear arrangement
of Anthony with the linear arrangement of
Takahashi et al” (final rejection, pp. 4-5).
Appellants argue (brief, pg. 7) that “[n]one of the
references teaches or suggests a resilient biasing member biasing
a mesh plate toward an upper end face of a pump shaft . . . .”
The examiner disagrees with appellants stating (answer, pg. 5)
that “[c]laim 1 only recites intermittent contact which is
clearly taught in Anthony because the diaphragm 9 of Anthony
vibrates.” We do not agree with this assertion by the examiner
since the claim specifically recites “a resilient biasing
member.” Although the device of Anthony may provide for varying
the contact pressure between the diaphragm and the nozzle, we do
not find that Anthony teaches or suggests a structural element
that can be deemed as corresponding to the resilient biasing
member as claimed in claim 1. Also in the answer, page 5,
the examiner states that “Anthony is not relied upon to teach
the resilient biasing member - such is explicitly taught by
Bendig . . . .” However, the final rejection, as set forth by
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007