Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
dependent from claim 27, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Norman, for reasons given above.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER NORMAN
Claims 10, 13, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Norman.
Since Appellants’ arguments treat these claims as a group in the Brief
and the Reply Brief, we address them likewise. We focus on claims 10, 13
and 18 only as claim 26 is dependent from claim 19, the rejection of which
has not been sustained.
Claims 10 and 13 respectively recite “the cartridge is made of flexible
plastic” and “the check valve includes a duckbill portion and an umbrella
portion.” The Examiner contends that these claim features are known in the
prior art by taking official notice and by citing references in support of this
official notice (Answer 14-15). For the limitation of claim 18 of a hose
coupler with an anti-siphon unit, the Examiner relies on Appellants’
Specification disclosure on page 5, paragraph 26 to evince it is known in the
prior art (Answer 15). The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness provides
reasons why it would have been obvious to modify Norman’s device to
include the features recited in these claims (Answer 14-15).
In the Brief, Appellants seem to have challenged the Examiner’s
reliance on official notice to meet these limitations (Br. para. bridging 15-
16). In response to Appellants’ apparent challenge, the Examiner provided
the above noted citations of references and of Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants reply:
It is . . . noted, that all of the section 103
rejections are based on Norman alone or in
combination with another reference. However,
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007