Appeal No. 2003-0222
Application 09/555,910
portion of the resilient lip or flange (33) in the ball valve of
Sanctuary lies downstream of the seat (17) therein.
As a response to appellants’ arguments, the best we get from
the examiner is that the structure of the ball valve in Sanctuary
is “virtually identical and any variations disclosed are deemed
to be obvious in light of Sanctuary” (answer, page 5). In
addition, the examiner makes the observation (also on page 5 of
the answer) that “[t]he yielding zones [presumably of Sanctuary]
are downstream of one of the valve seats and upstream of another”
and that “[t]here is a spherical portion facing the inlet as well
as the outlet.” None of which comments seems to us to be
specifically responsive to appellants’ arguments.
As noted in MPEP § 1208, when preparing an Examiner’s
answer, for each rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the examiner
“shall explain why the rejected claims are anticipated or not
patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102, pointing out where all of the
specific limitations recited in the rejected claims are found in
the prior art relied upon in the rejection.” In the present
case, the examiner has made no effort whatsoever to comply with
this requirement. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007