Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 iv) The Rejection of Claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 103(a) as Unpatentable over Leaphart ‘753 in view of
3 Schaefer
4
5 Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 28 and further limit the hardness
6 of the unidirectional seal. Both Leaphart and the Examiner agree that
7 Leaphart ‘753 does not describe the claimed hardness of the rubber seal.
8 Thus, Leaphart ‘753 fails to provide 35 U.S.C. § 120 benefit for claims 32
9 and 33 as it is not a complete disclosure as to the subject matter of these two
10 claims. The partial disclosure of Leaphart ‘753 however, is still available
11 for obviousness analysis when taken in combination with other references,
12 such as Schafer. Schaefer is relied upon by the Examiner as teaching that
13 specific hardness of the seal was known in the prior art as forming an
14 effective deformable seal.
15 Leaphart contends that neither Leaphart ‘753 nor Schaefer teach a
16 unidirectional seal. (Br. 7). Leaphart ‘753 describes a piston cup 31 that is
17 described as a flexible member that slidably engages with an interior wall of
18 a barrel. (Leaphart ‘753, col. 7, ll. 52-59). The piston cup is preferably
19 made from a pliable material with rubber being most preferred. (Id.). The
20 piston cup is attached to a seal adapter via a lug. (Id.). The seal adapter is
21 attached to the lower barrel by a suitable adhesive and secures the piston
22 cup. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 42-47). The Examiner found that the seal adapter
23 would prevent the piston cup from flexing in the direction of the nozzle, i.e.,
24 drain side of the plunger. (Answer 6-7). Leaphart has failed to demonstrate
25 that the Examiner’s finding of unidirectionality was in error.
26 Leaphart contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
27 employ the rubber materials of Schaefer as the rubber piston cup material of
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013