Appeal No. 2003-0132
Application 09/741,356
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1 through 6 and 10 through 14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,992,686. In
that regard, we find that we are in general agreement with
appellants’ comments and arguments in the brief, pages 3-8,
concerning this aspect of the examiner’s position. Even if we
were to agree with the examiner that Suh generally evidences the
existence and use of a conduit, valves and a nozzle in a fluid
delivery and mixing system at a time prior to that of appellants’
invention, we find no basis in such patent for utilizing those
elements in the particular locations and manner required in the
dispensing systems of claims 1 through 17 on appeal or any basis
for modifying the dispensing systems of claims 1 through 6 and 10
through 14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,992,686 so as to result in the
systems now claimed by appellants.
Moreover, we would also note that at least independent
claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,992,686 include limitations
not present in independent claims 1 and 9 of the present
application, which differences have also not been addressed by
the examiner, i.e, claim 1 of the patent requires that control of
the motor be based on the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor
and “on the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor as a function
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007