Appeal No. 1999-1080
Application No. 08/681,022
and out of contact with the valve seats as do the appellants’
valves. See brief, p. 7.
We do not agree with the appellants’ argument that
Moore’s valves are not capable of performing the function
recited in claim 18. Obviously, the valve [28] of Moore must
be in contact with its seat, in the same sense that the
appellants’ valve [45 or 49] is in contact with its seat, when
the valve is closed in order for Moore’s dispenser to function
as intended. We also understand Moore as teaching that valve
or disc [64] is fully opened during depression of actuator
[74] in order for product within chamber [26] to move upward
past disc [64]. Therefore, the examiner's determination that
the valves disclosed by Moore are capable of performing the
function recited in claim 18 appears reasonable to us.
With respect to claim 19, the appellants argue that in
Moore the entire spout portion moves during pumping and that
no separate activator is in communication with the pump
piston. Id. at p. 8.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007