Appeal No. 95-4237
Application 07/887,002
modification would result in a device that corresponds in all
respects to that which in claimed.
In view of the disparate structures and objectives of
Lurz and Clites, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found the proposed modification
desirable, and thus obvious. Further, it is not clear how a
throttle valve like that disclosed by Lurz at valve 7 would be
incorporated into Clites, nor is it apparent that the
resulting structure would function in the manner called for in
claim 1. In light of these deficiencies in the rejection, we
cannot sustain this rejection.
Summary
Rejections (a), (b), (c) and (e) are reversed.
Rejection (d), namely, the rejection of claims 1-5 as
being anticipated by Lurz, is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
-16-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007