Appeal No. 1998-1970
Application No. 08/587,134
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of independent
claim 13 on appeal. The examiner sets forth that Tarnawski
discloses a toilet system comprising: a bowl
9; a tank 20 including an inlet 21; a pump
including a body 25, an inlet 27 having a
valve 28, an outlet 39, a piston 32, and an
opening 37; and means forming a conduit
42, as claimed. The recited "clearance"
is considered inherent in the Tarnawski
pump body and piston. See lines 18-22
on page 2 of Tarnawski. (answer, pg 4.)
Appellants dispute the examiner's conclusion that
Tarnawski inherently discloses a clearance between the pump
body and the piston. Appellants argue that Tarnawski is "more
likely to be supportive of an argument that the piston is
tightly mounted in the cylinder than it supports an argument
that the piston is in a clearance relation with the
cylinder.". (Brief, pg 5.) Appellants rely on the disclosure
of Tarnawski at page 2, lines 18-22 to demonstrate that
Tarnawski did not intend for water to flow past the piston and
therefore the pump body and piston arrangement of Tarnawski is
presumed to be in a non-clearance relation. Appellants
further argue that Tarnawski states that during depression of
the plunger, the charge of water in the pump "is forcibly
injected into the bowl" and that the term <forcibly’ is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007