Appeal No. 95-4616
Application 08/200,932
engineering choice, the appellant argues otherwise. In the appellant’s invention the
components of the intake system are designed in such a manner as to provide the
particular advantages recited in the opening pages of the specification. Therefore in
the absence of evidence supporting the examiner’s position, we are not persuaded that
this combination of features would have been obvious.
The rejection of independent claim 81 and dependent claims 82 and 83 is not
sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 84 et al.
Claims 84-89 and 93-98, all of which are dependent from claim 81, stand
rejected as being unpatentable over Curtis in view of Weed, the latter being cited for its
teaching of forming the fingers of the multiple reed valves integral with one another. Be
that as it may, the deficiencies in the teachings of Curtis that resulted in the demise of
the rejection of claim 81 are not cured by Weed. This being the case, the rejection of
these claims is not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007