Appeal No. 96-3149
Application 08/305,428
We do not agree with this conclusion. We understand the
phrase “minimum air flow” to require that some air flow be
permitted when the valve is in its lowered position. Since
claims 13 and 14 recite means to allow a minimum air flow when
the valve is in the lowered position, and Binder does not allow
any air flow when its valve is in the lowered position, a prima
facie case of obviousness is lacking and we will not sustain this
rejection.
Dependent claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 on the basis of Binder and Ballard. The latter reference
is cited by the examiner for its teaching of “means 29 outside of
the duct for moving the valve between open and closed positions”
(Answer, page 4). Be that as it may, Ballard does not alleviate
the shortcoming in Binder which was discussed above with regard
to the rejection under Section 102. That being the case, the
combined teachings of the two references fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 17 and 18,
and we will not sustain the Section 103 rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007