Appeal 2006-2438
Application 09/259,306
specifically describes the particulars of how such a substituted outlet valve
would be arranged in any of the various micro pump embodiments disclosed
by Van Lintel.
Thus, the Examiner has not fairly related how Van Lintel describes a
liquid feed apparatus wherein a liquid feed chamber outlet port is provided
with a valve having the structural arrangement required by appealed
independent claim 4. Outlet valve (16) of drawing Figure 8 of Van Lintel is
arranged to close against lower plate (2) rather than pressing against the
outlet port as required by appealed claim 4. In this regard, the Examiner’s
reference to the general suggestion in Van Lintel that a valve substitution
can be made for the outlet valve thereof falls short of the requisite specificity
required for a finding of anticipation.
Moreover, Appellants (Supplemental Reply Br. 6) maintain that Van
Lintel does not describe locating an outlet port (having a valve) at the
peripheral part circumscribing the liquid feed chamber as required by
appealed claim 4. The Examiner’s contention (Supplemental Answer 4) that
drawing Figures 8 and 9 of Van Lintel do disclose such a location for the
outlet port is not persuasive in the face of that argument in that outlet port
(5) does not include a valve and outlet valve (16) is located interiorly of the
periphery.
In addition and in applying Van Lintel to the claimed subject matter
throughout the Answers, the Examiner takes the position that various claim
limitations related to function and/or how the claimed apparatus components
are configured to move or cooperate relative to each other are entitled to no
patentable weight seemingly because the Examiner views these claim
recitations as something other than a structural limitation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007