Appeal No. 96-3745
Application 08/269,916
claimed
invention. Appellant also seeks to distinguish the present
invention from the “progressive closing” of the flapper valve
of Garries (main brief, pages 8 and 9). As explained, infra,
claim 1 is not distinguished as argued. As indicated by
Garries (column 7, lines 49 through 68), above the wind speed
of 30 m.p.h. the flapper valves move upward to progressively
close off air passages. Claim 1 calls for movement of the
member between inactive and active positions in response to
wind in excess of a predetermined ambient wind speed, but does
not preclude a progressive closing. The understanding we
derive from appellant’s specification and, for example,
original claim 2, is that the movable member is not an
exclusively two-position (passages open or passages closed )8
member that is responsive to a single critical activation
pressure to instantaneously switch the member from its open
As seen in Figure 3, for example, the member does not seat against the8
ends of the passages, to close the passages, in the closed or active position
(specification, page 2).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007