Appeal No. 2001-0078
Application No. 08/892,131
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 16 based on the combined teachings of Clark
and Barinaga. At page 8 of the Answer, the Examiner, responding
to Appellant’s comments in the Brief, sets forth an explanation
in support of the rejection of claim 16 which essentially repeats
the rationale provided in the rejection against previously
discussed claim 4. Although Appellant filed a Reply Brief, no
arguments pointing out any error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16 has been set forth. Further, our review of the Barinaga
reference reveals a cap and shell structure which satisfies the
requirements of claim 16. (See Barinaga, outwardly projecting
bead 124 of cap 32 and inwardly projecting recess 122 on interior
surface of shell 30).
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained the
rejection of claims 4, 5, and 16, but have not sustained the
rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 13, and 15. Therefore, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 13, 15, and 16 is
affirmed-in-part.2
2 The Examiner and Appellant should review the following instances of
unclear antecedent reference:
Claim 4, lines 17-18, “the pumping chamber”
Claim 13, line 11, “chassis” should apparently be “shell”
Claim 15, line 1, “said cap” which raises a question as to whether claim
15 is properly dependent on claim 13.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007