Appeal No. 1998-1711 Page 16
Application No. 08/506,387
Turning finally to claim 8, which depends from claim 1 and further requires that the
further reservoir is divided into a plurality of chambers adapted for containing different fluids,
Penkwitz' teaching of providing an intermediate space between the walls of the reservoir and
the walls of the expansion tank would have suggested such a configuration in the Eustache
assembly.
For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the combined teachings of Eustache and
Penkwitz are sufficient to have suggested the subject matter of claims 4-6 and 8 and, therefore,
we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of these claims.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground
of rejection.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eustache in
view of Penkwitz.
The reasoning set forth above in determining that the subject matter of claim 4 is
unpatentable over Eustache in view of Penkwitz, which is incorporated herein, also mandates a
conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is likewise
unpatentable over Eustache in view of Penkwitz.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007