Appeal No. 2002-1524 Page 5
Application No. 09/423,526
the examiner is “connected to” the “leaf spring” by virtue of being integral therewith. We
further note Sparks’ explanation that element 21a “is stressed so as to maintain a
constant pressure against the end face of the valve seat 18a” (column 2, lines 49-52),
which indicates that it presses against the sealing seat, in the same manner as the
“closing body” recited in claim 12.
We therefore find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the subject
matter recited in claim 12 is anticipated by Sparks, and we will sustain the rejection.
Claim 31 stands rejected as being anticipated by Makusay. This reference
discloses a poppet valve, which by definition is a valve that moves perpendicularly to
and from its seat.2 When the valve is to be opened a signal is applied to coils 28 and
29 of such polarity as to cause armature 22 to move in a clockwise direction, causing
rod 21, which is attached thereto, also to rotate clockwise. This results in cylinder 44,
which carries poppet 16 and is mounted on the end of rod 21, moving to the left as
shown in Figure 2 so that poppet 16 moves away from valve seat 15. A coil spring 51
arrayed about a post 47 inside cylinder 44 biases poppet 16 toward the valve seat
through an interposed ball 49, with movement of the poppet being limited by an
inwardly turned flange 45.
The appellants have advanced only two arguments with regard to this rejection.
The first is that Makusay’s spring 51 does not deform “exclusively in the direction of its
2See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 895.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007