Appeal No. 2001-0078
Application No. 08/892,131
rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 13, and 15 discussed supra, we reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 4 and 5. Unlike
previously independent claims 1 and 13 which set forth the
structural relationship between the ribbed frame and the recessed
shell, independent claim 4 is directed to the structural
engagement of the chassis overlying cap and the wall of the
pumping mechanism. Although Appellant contends (Brief, page 4)
that Clark and Barinaga lack the specific features of claim 4, we
find this argument to be unfounded. We find to be equally
without merit Appellant’s arguments with respect to dependent
claim 5 which repeat the assertions made with regard to claim 4
by asserting a lack of teaching of “ . . . the engagement of ribs
(219) of the embodiment of Fig. 11 with the recesses (222d)
. . . . ” In contrast to Appellant’s arguments, Barinaga, as
pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 9), discloses a pumping
mechanism 2 having ribs 120 which engage the slot 128 in the
skirt of the cap 32. In our view, the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Clark and Barinaga establishes a prima facie case
of obviousness which has not been rebutted by any convincing
arguments from Appellant. Therefore, the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 4 and 5 based on the combination of Clark and
Barinaga is sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007