Appeal 2006-3100
Application 10/662,547
1 DISCUSSION
2 We will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 to 11 because the
3 combined teachings of the references relied on by the Examiner do not
4 disclose or suggest a slidable sleeve for sequentially covering the plurality of
5 holes to progressively close a third flow path and which is operable to
6 simultaneously cover all the holes.
7 Lee does not disclose a slidable sleeve covering holes but rather that
8 the surface of the piston itself covers the holes. In addition the piston
9 surface of Lee passes over the holes to cover the holes one by one but does
10 not disclose simultaneously covering all the holes.
11 Dressell discloses a sleeve that rotates around the piston to
12 progressively cover all the holes at once but does not disclose sequentially
13 closing the holes.
14 There is no disclosure or suggestion of a slidable sleeve operable to
15 sequentially cover the holes in a piston rod and to simultaneously cover all
16 the holes.
17 We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 to 15
18 and 18 because the combined teachings of references do not disclose or
19 suggest a sleeve operable to progressively close a third flow path by
20 progressively closing a groove, with a hole at its base, from the hole to the
21 terminal end.
22 Dressell and Schupner both disclose a sleeve that rotates to cover all
23 the grooves or uncover all the grooves.
24 The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
25 REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013