Ex parte Sipin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2001

08905910 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ANATOLE J. SIPIN
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PATE, STAAB, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 12.
Claim 11, the only other pending claim, has been allowed.
The claimed invention is directed to a continuous fluid
injection pump for pumping purge liquid to lubricate the
bearings and protect the rotating seals of an implanted rotary
blood pump. The invention is characterized by a pumping
Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
2
piston which has both a sliding seal to prevent fluid leakage
and a flexible seal to isolate the fluid chamber from the
environment and prevent bacterial contamination. The claimed
invention may be further understood by reference to appealed
claim 12 which is appended to the examiner's answer.
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation is:
Handfield 4,730,991 Mar. 15,
1988
REJECTION
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Handfield. It is the examiner's finding that
O-ring seal 66 anticipates appellant's claimed sliding seal,
while O-ring seal 64 anticipates appellant's claimed flexible
seal. Consequently, the examiner is of the opinion that
Handfield anticipates the claimed subject matter of appealed
claim 12.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the factual finding
Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
3
that claim 12 is not anticipated by the disclosure of
Handfield. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 is
reversed. Our reasons follow.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "each
and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d
1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(quoting Verdegal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 5053)(Fed.
Cir.)) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Thus, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to find one-to-one correspondence
between the claimed subject matter and that disclosed in the
structure of Handfield.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Handfield
discloses a fluid injection pump having a housing with an
inlet, an outlet and a bore, inlet and outlet valves, a piston
to reciprocate within the bore and a means to reciprocate the
piston through its suction and pressure strokes. With respect
to the sliding seal and flexible seal, the examiner states
Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
4
that seal 66 in Handfield corresponds to the sliding seal
claimed, whereas
O-ring 64 corresponds to the flexible seal. Turning to the
flexible seal as claimed in claim 12, we note that the
flexible seal is required to be "connected at one end to said
piston and at the other end to said housing." As disclosed in
Handfield, it is clear that seal 64 slides to and fro on
piston 56 and can in no manner be considered to be connected
thereto. The examiner argues that there is no precise
definition of "what constitutes a 'connection'" and the words
of the claim should be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. While we agree that the claim terms should be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, it is clear
that seal 64 can in no manner be considered "connected" to
piston 56. They are simply two separate members, one moving
on the other.
Accordingly, it is our finding that Handfield does not
disclose a flexible seal between the sliding seal and the
reciprocating means. Therefore, Handfield does not disclose
each and every element as set forth in the claim. The
rejection of claim 12 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
5
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP:lbg
JAMES V COSTIGAN
HEDMAN GIBSON & COSTIGAN
1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-2601