Appeal No. 2002-1524 Page 2
Application No. 09/423,526
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a valve device. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 12 and 31, which appear
in the appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Simonds 75,210 Mar. 3, 1868
Sparks 2,835,468 May 20, 1958
Makusay et al. (Makusay) 3,510,100 May 5, 1970
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Sparks.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Makusay.
Claims 13, 15-17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sparks.
Claims 14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sparks in view of Simonds.1
1Claim 18 was listed in the rejections with claims 12, 15-17 and 19, rather than being included
with claim 14, from which it depends and with regard to which a different rejection was applied. We shall
consider this to be an inadvertent error on the part of the examiner, and for the purpose of evaluating the
rejections will group claim 18 with claim 14. We note in this regard that the appellant did not mention this
matter or argue the separate patentability of claim 18 in the Brief or the Reply Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007