Appeal No. 95-4616
Application 08/200,932
requires a pair of flow passages extending through the reed valve arrangement and
communicating with the caging members, which is not shown or suggested by the
Japanese reference.
The rejection of independent claim 49 and dependent claims 50-53, 58-66 and
73-79 is not sustained.
The Rejection of Independent Claim 81
This claim has been rejected as being unpatentable over Curtis, which is
directed to a two stage carburetor for a two-stroke engine. The claim requires “a
caging member defining a flow chamber,” at least one valve opening communicating
with the flow chamber, and a pair of flow passages communicating with the flow
chamber. Curtis discloses a pair of flow chambers (14 and 16). However, unlike the
appellant’s system in which both flow passages communicate with a single flow
chamber defined by the caging members, it is basic to the Curtis invention that each
flow passage communicate with a separate flow chamber defined by a separate caging
member (column 1, lines 53-56). It therefore is our view that the Curtis system differs
from the claimed system in that it does not disclose or teach supplying a single flow
chamber by means of two flow passages.
In addition, Curtis fails to disclose rectangular valved openings being used in
concert with flow passages of circular cross-section, which is required by this claim.
While the examiner is of the view that these limitations would have been matters of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007