Appeal No. 2002-0021
Application No. 09/417,439
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s above-noted rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Like appellant, we are of the opinion that there is no reasonable teaching,
suggestion or incentive in the applied prior art references, or otherwise specified by the
examiner, which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention to modify the seat valve of Brehm in the particular manner urged by the
examiner. Brehm discloses an electromagnetically operated pressure valve similar to
the valve addressed by appellant. Indeed, appellant has noted on pages 2 and 3 of his
specification that Brehm is representative of the prior art over which the present
invention is an improvement. While Brehm appears to generally recognize a type of
temperature related flow problem similar to that discussed by appellant, that reference
provides a solution as shown in Figures 1 and 2 thereof, wherein a single throttling hole
(57) is provided in Figure 1 or wherein the throttling hole (57) of Figure 1 is replaced
with a throttling bore (57a) seen in Figure 2 having sections (57b) and (57c) of different
cross-sectional shapes and lengths.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007