Appeal No. 2000-1359 Page 9
Application No. 08/351,613
begin our analysis here by pointing out that the appellants have not challenged the
combining of the references, but base their opposition upon two other arguments.
The first of these is that the presence of a diffuser in the Plechinger device
renders the Section 103 rejection defective (Brief, page 7). We again find this not to be
persuasive, for the same reasons as were set forth above with regard to the rejections
under Section 102. Second, while the appellants admit that the Wallach pump is
pulsatile (Brief, page 8), they inconsistently argue on the same page that the reference
fails to disclose a pump that operates in the manner required by these rejected claims,
a conclusion with which we do not agree.
Wallach discloses using a pulsing device to provide a suction-creating jet in
which the pulse frequency, pulse duration, pressure and liquid volume output are
continuously adjustable. Wallach suggests a positive displacement piston pump whose
stroke is adjustable and which is driven by a variable speed electric motor and is
provided with a pressure relief or bypass valve so that the variable and adjustable
parameters are easily and conveniently achievable (column 4, lines 43-54).
From our perspective, the combined teachings of Plechinger and Wallach
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claim 82. Plechinger discloses all of the subject matter recited in claims 79, 80 and 81,
from which claim 82 depends, but does not disclose the specific type of pump recited in
claim 82. However, Wallach teaches using a positive displacement piston pump, which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007