Appeal 2006-2813
Application 10/168,887
vacuum to one of the plugs in ports 22 and 24, Appellants contend that "the
apparatus of Corbin is in a temporary state [when the vacuum is applied] that
is part of the preparation of the dialysis apparatus (i.e., the apparatus is not in
a usable condition for its intended function when the vacuum pump is
connected)" (page 5 of principal Brief, first paragraph). Appellants explain
"it is clear that the dialysis apparatus is removed from the vacuum source
when the potting mix is completely cured, or even before full cure" (id.).
We concur with the Examiner that the flaw in Appellants' argument is
that the appealed claims are drawn to an apparatus, not a method, and all that
is required under § 102 is that the claimed structure be described in the
Corbin reference. Hence, although Corbin does not teach that a vacuum is
drawn through ports 22 or 24 during the dialysis procedure, we agree with
the Examiner that the apparatus of Corbin is fully capable of meeting the
presently claimed requirement of connecting the second zone of the liquid
handling member to a suction device. Significantly, Appellants have
advanced no argument that the apparatus of Corbin does not possess this
capability. Also, Appellants have not refuted the Examiner's reasonable
position that since ports 22 and 24 of Corbin "are connected to a dialysate
source" (column 5 lines 5-10), one of the ports would be fully capable of
being connected to the suction of a dialysate pump (see page 14 of Answer,
first paragraph). The pneumatic resistor of Corbin noted by Appellants need
not be used during the dialysis operation.
We now turn to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6 under § 103
over Lawrence in view of Blaney. Appellants have not contested the
Examiner's factual determination that Lawrence, like Appellants, discloses a
disposable absorbent article comprising a liquid handling member
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007