Appeal No. 2005-1833 Page 6
Application No. 10/338,337
With respect to claim 34, which depends from claim 33, Castner's head 40N has a
bottom wall that interconnects the first and second hollow piston rods 31N and 32N
through which the hollow piston rods open, via passages 37N, 38N, to communicate with
an interior volume 50 of the head. The rejection of claim 34 as being anticipated by
Castner is sustained.
The like rejection of claims 39-42 has not been separately argued apart from
claim 33, thus allowing these claims to stand or fall with representative claim 33 (see In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). The rejections of claims 39-42 is
therefore also sustained.
Claim 38
Claim 38 depends from claim 33 and further recites a single spring positioned
between the first and second piston rods and between the first and second pump
chambers and the manifold. In Castner’s dispenser (Figure 3), a spring 29N and 30N is
provided in each pump chamber 23N and 24N to restore the pistons 31N, 32N to their
raised position after the head 40N is released. As evidenced by Markey (see Figure 5),
the use of a single spring disposed between the first and second pistons (chambers
118, 120) and between the first and second pump chambers (fluid accumulation
chambers 110, 112) and the structure connecting the first and second pistons for
restoring the pistons to their raised position upon release of the actuator 140 was well
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007