Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 of the filing date of the application from which the ‘753 patent issued.
2 Alternatively if Leaphart ‘753 fails to sufficiently describe and/or enable the
3 claimed subject matter then Leaphart ‘753 cannot be said to anticipate the
4 claims on appeal.
5
6 ii) The Rejection of Claims 28-31 and 34-37 as Anticipated
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Ruo
8
9 Leaphart contends that Ruo does not teach or suggest a unidirectional
10 seal. Leaphart states that Ruo merely teaches that a blockage can be sucked
11 in one direction and pressured in another, which is not equivalent to a
12 unidirectional seal. (Br. 6).
13 Ruo states that its parts are made of PVC plastic or other suitable
14 material. (Ruo, col. 1, ll. 53-54). Ruo’s washers are fixed on a piston with
15 adhesives used to stick them together. (Id. at col. 1, ll. 54-59). As to
16 unidirectional seals, the Examiner’s Answer directs our attention to the
17 following statement in Ruo:
18 The present invention can be operated contrary, that is to pull
19 the handle (2) to the end, then put the elastic disc (5) on the
20 opening of drain pipe (702). When said handle is pressed
21 downward, the piston (4) moves down, which presses and
22 releases the blockage (8) in the toilet or drain pipe (702).
23
24 (Ruo, col. 2, ll. 49-54 cited in Answer at 5). The elastic disk (5) of Ruo
25 being the portion of the plunger that is in direct contact with the drain.
26 Based upon the evidence presented, we find that the Examiner has
27 failed to demonstrate that Ruo describes a unidirectional seal. Specifically,
28 the Examiner has failed to provide a sufficient basis to conclude that one of
29 ordinary skill in the art would understand that Ruo’s seals will engage an
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013