Appeal No. 2006-0145
Application 09/639,850
With regard to claims 2, 3, and 8, the examiner contends that Black teaches the claimed
invention (ink supply pump in Figure 4, a diaphragm pump at 146, column 5, lines 5-20, disclosing
the diaphragm being operable between first and second positions for preventing and permitting flow
of ink, and a drive assembly (at 142, 144) for driving the diaphragm between the two positions)
except for the stress applied to the diaphragm being less than 75% of the elastic limit of the
diaphragm.
The examiner turns to Mastromatteo for a teaching of limiting deformation of a diaphragm to
a stress below the elastic limit in order for the diaphragm to return from a pressure loaded position to
a preloaded position. The examiner refers to column 6, lines 9-20, of Mastromatteo.
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to apply the stress to the
diaphragm pump in Black at a level below the elastic limit of the diaphragm, as taught by
Mastromatteo,
so that the diaphragm would maintain its desired positions
during use. With respect to the recitation of stress applied
to the diaphragm being limited to less than 75% of the elastic
limit, since Mastromatteo...teaches to apply stress below the
elastic limit, the optimum stress required in order to maintain
the diaphragm in proper form would be determined by those
having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentations
(answer-page 4).
Appellants argue that there is insufficient motivation to make the proposed combination
because Mastromatteo discloses a diaphragm used in a hydraulic device, wherein the diaphragm is
used in conjunction with a liquid which acts as a cushion, conforming to the shape of the diaphragm,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007