Ex Parte Couvillon, et al - Page 5

               Appeal  2007-3154                                                                            
               Application 10/262,817                                                                       
               cylinder, especially one that conveys a fluid or functions as a passage.”5                   
               Thus, we interpret “tubular member” as excluding a member that has a                         
               rectangular cross-section, such as the pumping chamber (14 of Fig. 1a) of                    
               the pump apparatus taught by Soltanpour.  Moreover, we note that was the                     
               initial understanding of the Examiner, as in the rejection, the Examiner                     
               pointed to 17 and 17’ of Fig. 1a of Soltanpour as the tubular members, and                   
               the geometry of 17 and 17’ is consistent with the definition of tubular                      
               proffered by Appellants.                                                                     
                      Thus, as Soltanpour fails to disclose a “a tubular member comprising                  
               an electroactive polymer actuator that is configured to expand and contract                  
               at least a portion of an inner volume of said tubular member based upon                      
               received control signals,” the reference fails to teach every element and                    
               limitation of claim 1 (on which the remaining claims depend), and the                        
               rejection is reversed.                                                                       
                      Claims 7, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                 
               obvious over Soltanpour.  But as claims 7, 12, and 13 are dependent from                     
               claim 1, the rejection is reversed for the reasons set forth above.                          
                      Claims 10, 11, 16, and 17stand rejected under Soltanpour as combined                  
               with Adolf, and claims 15, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                       
               103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Soltanpour and Kaneto.  As                   
               Adolf and Kaneto do not remedy the deficiencies of Soltanpour, these                         
               rejections are also reversed.                                                                


                                                                                                           
               5 tube. Dictionary.com. The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English                     
               Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.                                    
               http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tube (accessed: August 19, 2007).                     
                                                     5                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013