Appeal 2006-2438
Application 09/259,306
employed in Van Lintel would appear to be excluded by the integral
molding formation of the valves and ports required by claim 4. Also, this
claim recitation requires that the apparatus is assembled such that the beams
exert a force that tends to press an associated valve seat part against an
associated port. While the silicon inlet valve structure (412) depicted in
drawing Figures 10(a) and 10 (b) of Van Lintel does include a central
obturation piece (420) linked by arms (419) with an annular ring (418) that
is glued upon plate (6) thereof, the Examiner has not reasonably explained
how such valve structure of Van Lintel coupled with the pump structure of
drawing Figure 8 would inherently anticipate the appealed claims. In this
regard, the Examiner’s assertion that “… any valve of equivalent structure
meets the limitation of the instant claims” (Supplemental Answer 7) is
misplaced in that anticipation is not founded on equivalence but on the
identification of subject matter in the applied reference upon which the
claimed subject matter reads on.
The Examiner’s assertion (Supplemental Answer 9) that the device of
Van Lintel has the ability to be arranged in a manner consonant with the
claimed structure, such that the arms (419) exert a closure force on the
obturation piece (420) against a liquid feed apparatus port arranged as
claimed, falls short in establishing a prima facie case of anticipation based
on inherency. Thus, the Examiner has not established that Van Lintel
anticipates the integrally molded valve structure required by independent
claim 4 and/or the requirements of independent claims 4 and 15 regarding
the structural requirement that a resiliently deformed beam part presses the
seat part against the associated port.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007