Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
Norman of a third position for the valve 82” and that “there is no teaching
that when in such an ‘in between’ position the valve would block the first
and second liquids” (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner has provided a technical reasoning as to why rotation
of the valve 82 to an “in between” position would block the path of the two
fluids. Specifically, the Examiner contends that “there is a mid position
where passageway 112 is perpendicular to conduit 80; in such position,
neither the first liquid in the cartridge 10 nor the second liquid from conduit
80 can flow through valve structure 82” (Answer para. bridging 4-5).
While Appellants speculate that “[w]ater ends up in the nozzle 104
regardless of whether the water flows through the valve or around the valve”
(Reply Br. 2), we agree with the Examiner’s rationale that Norman’s valve
82 is free to rotate at least in a 180 degree range to a position “in between”
where the flow of the second liquid [water] in conduit 80 and, hence the
flow of the first liquid in cartridge 10, would be blocked. That is, Norman’s
valve 82 has the inherent capability of performing the function at issue. On
this record, Appellants have offered no persuasive argument and no evidence
to the contrary.
Claims 2 through 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 17, all of which depend from
claim 1, were not separately argued and, therefore, stand or fall with claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 14,
15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Norman.
Regarding claim 11, Appellants state that it “includes the limitation
that the ’cartridge is capable of being disconnected from the sprayer bottle to
enable the first liquid to be dispensed from the cartridge by squeezing the
cartridge in an inverted position’” (Br. 9). Appellants argue that “[t]here is
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007