Appeal No. 96-3445
Application 08/233,088
McKay discloses a valve element 70 which perfoormes the same
function. According to the excaminer, it would have been obvious
to substitute a well-known disc valve for the valve element in
McKay to reduce material costs and reduce the weight of the valve
member and increase efficiency.
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
appellants and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to Appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 10),
Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No.
12) for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’ specification
and claims, the applied reference, and the respective viewpoints
advanced by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 should not be sustained. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
Initially, we note that an examiner has the initial duty of
supplying a factual basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
He may not, because he doubts that the invention is patentable,
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007