Appeal No. 2006-0145
Application 09/639,850
thereby preventing damage to the diaphragm. Also, since Mastromatteo’s diaphragm is used in “a
completely different manner” (principal brief-page 8), and not driven by a drive assembly between a
first and second position, as in the instant invention, appellants submit that the skilled artisan in the
art of stencil printers would not turn to the teachings of Mastromatteo.
Moreover, appellants contend that it is not possible to ascertain that the stress of the
diaphragm of Mastromatteo is or should be limited to less than 75% of the elastic limit of the
diaphragm, as required by the instant claims. Thus, argue appellants, even if Mastromatteo is
combined with Black, the combination does not teach, disclose, or suggest that a stress applied is
limited to less than 75% of the elastic limit of the diaphragm.
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including the applied references and the arguments
of appellants and the examiner, and we conclude therefrom that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
While Mastromatteo appears to suggest (column 6, lines 9-21) that if the stress on a
diaphragm is kept within its elastic limit, the diaphragm will remain undistorted and resilient, it is
unclear to us why the artisan would have taken this teaching of such a diaphragm in a fluid-pressure
operated device, such as the hydraulic system of Mastromatteo, and applied it to the diaphragm pump
of Black. There is nothing in Black which would have led the artisan to believe there was a potential
problem with the diaphragm of the pump.
Moreover, as appellants correctly argue, in our view, even if the combination is made, we find
nothing in either of the applied references suggesting that a stress applied should be limited to less
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007