Appeal No. 2005-1833 Page 7
Application No. 10/338,337
known in the art at the time of the appellants’ invention. To have replaced the two-
spring arrangement of Castner with the single-spring arrangement of Markey as a well
known alternative biasing arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art, especially in light of the fact that the Castner pistons 31N, 32N are connected
by the head 40N as one monolithic piece and will thus move vertically together.
The appellants’ concern that removing the dual springs 29N and 30N from the
interiors of the pump chambers 31N and 32N would negate the functioning of the springs
in biasing the ball valves 27N and 28N downwardly is unfounded. As evidenced by
Markey (column 4, lines 47-60) and the operation of spring-held ball check valves 35N
and 36N, normally closed check valves which open under differential pressure conditions
on opposite sides of the valves are extremely well known in the art for use in dual
chamber fluid dispensers. Accordingly, the removal of the dual springs 29N and 30N
from the pump chambers in favor of a single spring would not have presented a problem
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants’ invention.
For the foregoing reasons, the appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of any
error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 38 as being unpatentable over
Castner in view of Markey. The rejection is sustained.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), claims 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based upon an original disclosure which fails to provide
descriptive support for the subject matter now being claimed. We initially observe that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007