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 requires. Appellants’ further argue that Tarnawski discloses a tight fitting piston that forcibly injects water into the bowl is 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 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007