Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
provided a technical reasoning to support his determination that Norman’s
cartridge will not block the flow of the cartridge liquid out of the inverted
cartridge. Levy, 17 USPQ2d at 1464. This reasoning essentially is that if
ball 44 were capable of blocking the flow of the cartridge liquid when
pushed against tube 34 upon inverting the cartridge, then ball 44 would also
block the flow of the liquid from the cartridge when operating in the
cleaning mode.
We note that, in the cleaning mode, the vacuum in tube 34 can only
draw the liquid from the cartridge through orifice 50 and into tube 34 by
causing the ball 44 to be lifted off orifice 50 and against tube 34 (Fig. 1). If
the vacuum forces ball 44 into sealing engagement with the bottom of tube
34 in the cleaning mode, there would be no liquid flow from the cartridge
and Norman’s device would not fulfill its intended function. Norman only
discloses that ball 44 “is forced into sealing engagement . . . to close and seal
orifice 50” when it operates in the rinsing mode (col. 4, ll. 41-43).
Appellants’ argument does not address this particular issue raised by the
Examiner.
Thus, we determine that the Examiner has provided a convincing
technical reasoning in support of his position that Norman’s cartridge
inherently possesses the capability recited in claim 11 which has not been
persuasively rebutted by Appellants.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Norman.
Regarding claim 12, Appellants state that it “includes the limitation
that the ‘cartridge includes a check valve for keeping the cartridge sealed
until the first liquid is drawn out of the cartridge’” (Br. 9). According to
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007