Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 interior wall when the upper barrel is drawn away from the lower barrel but
2 not towards the lower barrel or vice versa. We reverse the Examiner’s
3 rejection of claims 28-31 and 34-37 as anticipated by Ruo.
4
5 iii) The Rejection of Claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
6 § 103(a) as Unpatentable over Ruo and Schaefer.
7
8 Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 28 and further limit the hardness
9 of the unidirectional seal.
10 The Examiner relies upon Ruo as teaching a unidirectional seal.
11 Schaefer is relied upon as teaching that rubber materials having the claimed
12 hardness were known in the art as suitable for use in the construction of
13 deformable pistons. (Answer 5).
14 Leaphart contends that neither Ruo nor Schaefer describe or suggest a
15 unidirectional seal. We agree. Ruo teaches a piston that adheres to a washer
16 where the parts are made of PVC plastic or other suitable material. Ruo
17 does not suggest that its piston engages an interior wall when the upper
18 barrel is drawn away from the lower barrel but does not engage when the
19 upper barrel is pushed towards the lower barrel or vice versa. Similarly,
20 Schaefer does not suggest a unidirectional engagement with the interior wall
21 of a barrel. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32
22 and 33 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ruo and Schaefer.
23
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013