Appeal No. 96-4164
Application 08/467,295
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
rejection cannot be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Claim 14 on appeal expressly requires that the method
therein include, inter alia, the steps of “e. moving said valve
member out of engagement with the seating face; f. shifting
said valve member into juxtaposition with a second position; and,
g. seating the valve member against a sealing face in the second
position . . . .” As urged by appellant on page 7 of the brief,
the specific issue before us on appeal is whether the above-noted
steps of the claimed method are inherent in the operation of the
valve disclosed by Van Allen. Like appellant, we find that the
method set forth in claim 14 on appeal, and, more specifically,
steps e), f) and g) thereof are not inherent to the apparatus of
Van Allen.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007