Appeal No. 97-3717 Page 7
Application No. 08/397,163
that the armature valve 26 is magnetic. Hunt does not
disclose any particular material to be used for the armature
valve 26.
In view of these teachings of Hunt, we agree with the
examiner that the sleeve member 20 and the armature valve 26
are made of different materials. However, since Hunt provides
no indication of the specific magnetic material used for the
armature valve 26, we also agree with the appellant's argument
(brief, pp. 6-7) that there is no disclosure, either expressly
or inherently, that the material of the sleeve member 20
(i.e., the valve seat carrier) has a larger coefficient of
thermal expansion than the material of the armature valve 26
(i.e., the valve needle). Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness issues
Claim 9
We will sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007