Appeal No. 2001-1548 Page 4
Application No. 08/907,512
of the first and second cylinders but finds suggestion to provide such a feature on the
Perrine apparatus in the teachings of Zanarini, as explained on page 5 of the answer.
The problem with the examiner’s reading of the sensors recited in claim 4 on
Perrine’s sensors 56, 57 is that the sensors 56, 57 are received in the structure of
Perrine’s apparatus (the cylinder ends 15, 16) which, according to the examiner, respond
to the top and bottom blocks recited in claim 4, not in the walls of the first and second
1
cylinders, as required by claim 4. Apparently perceiving a deficiency in the location of the
sensors in the Perrine device, the examiner (answer, page 9) points to Perrine’s teaching
in column 5, lines 19-29, that other sensing techniques may be used, instead of the
magnetic sensors 56, 57, for sensing when the dividers (pistons) 19, 20 of the cylinders
have reached a desired position and concludes from this that “therefore it would have been
well within the level of skill in the art of pump fabrication to have positioned the sensor
anywhere, as long as it was able to determine the end of the piston’s stroke” (answer,
page 9). As pointed out by appellant on page 3 of the reply brief, however, “Perrine
nowhere indicates or suggests that the disclosed sensors can be mounted in the cylinder
walls as compared to wells in the bottoms of the pistons or cylinders.” The mere fact that
the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless
1It is apparent from a reading of claim 4 that the walls of the first and second cylinders are
structures distinct from the top, bottom and intermediate blocks recited in claim 4. Thus, the cylinder end
members 15, 16 of Perrine cannot provide structural response for both the top and bottom blocks and the
walls of the first and second cylinders.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007