Appeal No. 2001-0547 Page 3
Application No. 08/689,400
(9) Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas in view of Harris.
(10) Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas.
(11) Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas.
(12) Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas in view of Meador.
(13) Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas in view of Meador.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 23) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 22) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 29) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under The First Paragraph Of Section 112
The examiner has rejected claims 1-6, 8-12 and 17 under the first paragraph of
Section 112 because the specification does not explain how the one-way valve recited
in these claims is used to avoid air bubbles. The appellants argue in rebuttal that this
valve is described in their specification to such an extent as to allow one of ordinary skill
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007