Appeal No. 2001-0079
Application No. 09/092,702
combination of Gross and Ujita, we do not sustain this rejection
as well.2 In addressing the features of these claims, which
include limitations directed to a thin film valve heat staked to
a top portion of the pumping mechanism chassis to prevent
backflow from the pumping mechanism to the liquid pouch, the
Examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) the obviousness to the skilled
artisan of applying the thin film valve teachings of Ujita to the
liquid dispensing device of Gross.
It is apparent from our review of the Gross reference,
however, that motivation to add a backflow prevention valve to
Gross is lacking since Gross already discloses such a valve
(check valve V2). Further, it is our opinion that even assuming,
arguendo, that proper motivation were established for combining
Gross with Muscala, the resulting structure would not satisfy the
requirements of claims 9, 10, 21, and 22. As pointed out by
Appellants (Brief, pages 9 and 10), no teaching of heat staking
of the thin film valve in Ujita is provided, with Ujita instead
disclosing only the use of a liquid seal. We further agree with
Appellants that the applied prior art is silent as to the
2 The Examiner and Appellants should review the present dependence of
claim 22 on independent claim 19. Claim 22 is directed to the details of the
thin film configuration which has clear antecedent reference in independent
claim 21, but not independent claim 19.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007