Appeal No. 97-3717 Page 13
Application No. 08/397,163
valve needle. The arguments raised by the appellant (brief,
pp. 7-11) are unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, on pages 9-10 of the brief, the appellant argues
that Terakado teaches away from using titanium in the manner
set forth by the examiner. We do not agree. While Terakado
does disclose that his moving body 6 is made of a material A
selected from among those meeting JIS standard SUS420J2 (the
type containing 0.26 to 0.40% C and 12.00 to 14.00% Cr) taking
into consideration the magnetic properties, the induction
heating suitability, and the corrosion resistance, this
teaching of a preferred embodiment does not constitute a
teaching away. This is especially true since according to one
aspect of Terakado's invention (column 2, lines 25-28), the
armature, the rod, and the valve body (i.e., the moving body)
are integrally formed from the same material. Thus, it is
our view that Terakado's disclosure, taken as a whole, is not
limited to materials meeting JIS standard SUS420J2. See In re
Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) and In re Dunn,
349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007