Appeal No. 2006-1629
Application No. 10/104,569
chamber are completely surrounded by the gas chamber (which includes an outer bore), the
structural requirements of the present invention are met by the cited reference.
Appellants' arguments regarding the outer bore always being located above the liquid
level have been noted. These arguments are not persuasive because the claimed invention is
directed to the insert. The structural components of the insert of the present invention and that of
Reichinger are similar. Appellants have not explained how this utility distinguishes the insert of
Reichinger (that contains a bore) from the claimed invention. Reichinger discloses that the
bottom of the two-component chamber can be in the shape of an outward extending dome. (See
page 6). When the component chamber of Reichinger has this arrangement the bore would be at
the opposite end of the above-recognized dome. According to the examiner, Dunn establishes
that a spherical shaped bottom allows an insert to upright itself in a liquid container. (Note
Answer, pages 5 and 6). Thus, Appellants have not established a structural difference between
the cited references and the claimed invention.
Appellants' arguments regarding the characteristics of the axial direction and radial
direction have been considered, but are not persuasive of patentability. The appellants have not
identified the specific orientation of the egg-shaped or drop-shaped insert that distinguishes the
orientation from the cited reference. That is, the insert disclosed by Reichinger when comprising
the dome-shaped bottom section can be oriented to meet Appellants' described bore location and
radial and axial properties.
Appellants present similar arguments regarding the shape of the claimed insert member.
Appellants particularly reiterate their position that the cited references disclose cylindrical
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007