Appeal No. 2002-1524 Page 8
Application No. 09/423,526
The separate patentability of claim 16, which depends from claim 12, has not
been argued. Its rejection as being unpatentable over Sparks therefore will be
sustained. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 14 adds to claim 12 the requirement that at least one rivet or at least one
screw attach the leaf spring to the armature and/or the closing body. This claim stands
rejected as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sparks and Simonds,
the latter being cited for its disclosure of attaching a leaf spring to a valve closing body
by means of a screw. The appellants argue that Sparks provides no suggestion for
attaching the leaf spring to the armature and/or the closing body by means of a rivet or
screw. However, the rejection is based upon the combined teachings of both
references, and the appellants have not disputed the examiner’s finding that Simonds
teaches attaching a valve closure to its operating spring by means of a screw, or the
examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to utilize such a screw arrangement in the Sparks valve in view of the showing of
Simonds. This being the case, we will sustain the rejection or claim 14 and, it follows,
of claim 18, which depends from claim 14 and has not separately been argued.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 12, 14, 16, 18 and 31 is sustained.
The rejection of claims 13, 15, 17 and 19 is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007