Appeal No. 2004-0111
Application No. 09/930,098
of an electric relay.” (Appeal Brief, page 4, lines 3-16, quoting
lines 15-16).
Despite appellants’ assertion, Thomas does disclose the use
of an electric relay. As noted in the specification, a magnetic
actuator is used in the claimed valve (preferably a commercially
available one) (Specification, page 2, lines 13-17).
As correctly pointed out by the examiner, Thomas, figure 1,
discloses a magnetic actuator 44, 46, 48 which actuates an elastic
diaphragm 22. Additionally, Thomas states that the valve is
opened and closed by control of the current in the magnet coil or
winding (column 5, lines 26-29). Clearly, this is a magnetic
actuator, or relay, as claimed by the appellants.
Other than the appellants’ conclusory statement that Thomas
fails to disclose a relay, no evidence to contradict the examiner
is put forth by the appellants. Therefore, we agree with the
examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 19 is
anticipated by the Thomas disclosure and shall affirm the
rejection as it applies to claim 19.
Turning now to claims 26-27 and 29-31, the appellants urge
that Thomas does not show a means for maintaining substantially
constant volume in the fluid chamber notwithstanding opening and
closing of the valve. The appellants state that “use of either
side of the [see-saw] armature to displace the compliant diaphragm
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007