Appeal No. 1998-1872
Application No. 08/568,285
Appellants submit separate arguments (on page 11 of the Brief) for instant claim 4.
We first consider independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter on appeal,
and will then consider the merits of claim 4 separately. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Claim 1
In the rejection set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the Final Rejection, the examiner
contends that the artisan would have considered the combined teachings of Saulgeot and
Baret to render the claimed subject matter as a whole obvious. Saulgeot discloses
(Figure 2) a leak detector, but discloses a single mechanical primary pump 5 as a “pre-
evacuation set,” rather than a second secondary pump and a mechanical primary pump
connected together in series. Compare instant Figure 1, with pumps 6 and 7 comprising
pre-evacuation set 5.
The examiner turns to Baret (see also the further explanation on page 4 of the
Answer) as disclosing that mechanical primary pumps may employ oil seals which can
contaminate a system. Baret’s solution is to employ a dry pump 4 (Figure 1), but to also
provide a mechanical pump 3 in series with the dry pump in order to remedy deficiencies
inherent in dry pumps.
Appellants submit arguments in the Brief which are admitted to be directed to
unclaimed features of the invention. For example, claim 1 says nothing about a “partial
reverse flow detection mode” or a “Large Leakage Mode.” (See Brief, page 8.) Although
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007