Appeal No. 2004-0111
Application No. 09/930,098
appellants, it merely requires one end to displace the compliant
diaphragm, which is precisely what the Thomas disclosure teaches.
The appellants also fail to account for the term
“substantially” in claim 26. The volume need not be maintained
absolutely constant, simply substantially. The examiner’s
position, which is unrebutted, is that the armature displacing the
diaphragm of Thomas need travel only a very short distance to
close the valve gap. We find this logic compelling - relative to
the overall volume, the change to seal the valve of Thomas appears
to retain a substantially constant volume in the valve chamber.
We therefore shall affirm this rejection as well.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Thomas is sustained.
The rejection of claims 26-27 and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) over Thomas is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007