Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
no teaching in Norman that the cartridge 10 is capable of being
disconnected, inverted and by squeezing dispensing the liquid within the
cartridge 10” (id.). Further, Appellants argue that “if the cartridge 10 is not
completely full, inverting the cartridge will place the upstream end of the
tube 34 out of the liquid and no liquid will flow” (id.).
The Examiner contends:
If ball 44 will block tube 34 in an inverted
position, ball 44 will also block tube 34 when
subjected to the vacuum created at orifice 116,
which is clearly not the case. Ball 44 prevents flow
into the cartridge and not flow out of the cartridge.
Applicant further argues that Norman's cartridge
10 cannot be dispensed in the inverted position
unless it is completely full. Applicant's claim does
not require that the cartridge be not completely
full. When Norman's cartridge 10 is completely
full, it can be dispensed in an inverted position
until the liquid level drops below ball valve 40.
Finally, claim 11 merely requires the capability to
so perform [Answer 18].
In further support of their position, Appellants argue:
This limitation is not found in the Norman device
which if disconnected and inverted and then
squeezed will not operate because physics dictates
that the squeezing force on the liquid will be
directly transmitted to the ball 44 through the
orifice 50 and the ball will be pushed up against
the bottom end of the tube 34 to block the tube's
lower opening preventing the flow of any liquid
[Reply Br. 5].
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the cartridge of
Norman would not operate as recited in claim 11. The Examiner has
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007