Appeal No. 2003-0468 Page 3
Application No. 09/447,752
Claims 1 to 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
U.S. Patent No. 5,735,8151 to Bair.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed April 24, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 26, 2001) 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 Bair patent, 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 appellants argue (brief, pp. 2-3) that claims 1 to 7 are not anticipated by Bair
since Bair does not disclose a pumping chamber capable of producing pressure pulses
1 Issued April 7, 1998.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007