Appeal No. 2002-0797
Application No. 08/900,977
be needed. This, however, would not result in the claimed
invention, which requires a fluid flow control valve and a
downstream pressure regulator.
For the reasons discussed above, it is our determination
that the examiner has not made out a prima facie case of
obviousness of claims 1-5, 7-22 and 24-35.4 It follows that we
shall not sustain the standing rejection of the appealed claims.
4The Figure 5 embodiment of Cook ‘785 appears to us to
correspond to the combination set forth in claim 1, except
perhaps for the requirement concerning the “frequency response
characteristic” of the control valve. In the event of further
prosecution, the examiner may wish to consider whether the
control valve of Cook ‘785 inherently possesses the claimed
“frequency response characteristic,” such that there would be no
difference between the claimed control valve and pressure
regulator combination and the control valve and pressure
regulator combination disclosed in Figure 5 of Cook ‘785 at
elements 12B and 62B, respectively.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007