Ex parte CAMERON et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1998-1970                                                        
          Application No. 08/587,134                                                  

          water escapes through a "clearance" between the piston and the              
          pump body for ejection back into the tank.  This is all that                
          the broad language of appellants’ independent claim 13                      
               Appellants’ further argue that Tarnawski discloses a                   
          tight fitting piston that forcibly injects water into the bowl              
          equally unconvincing.  As a preliminary matter, we find no                  
          mention in Tarnawski of a tight-fit or sealing arrangement                  
          between the piston and the pump body and appellants have                    
          pointed to none.  A person of ordinary skill in the art would               
          know that a given level of force from the pump is required to               
          inject the water into the bowl such that the water travels                  
          with a circular motion around the interior of the bowl as the               
          bowl is being flushed.  Furthermore, appellants’ claim 13                   
          indicates that the piston is downwardly moveable within the                 
          pump body toward the pump outlet so as to "force water" from                
          the pump body through the pump outlet (claim 13, lines 15-16).              
          Thus, the mere indication in Tarnawski that the water is                    
          forcibly injected into the bowl, in no way serves to                        
          distinguish the water closet of Tarnawski from that set forth               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007