Appeal No. 96-4164
Application 08/467,295
The examiner's position (answer, pages 5-10) that the
claimed method steps are inherent to the apparatus of Van Allen,
in our opinion, is without factual support in the applied refer-
ence and is based on extensive speculation by the examiner. In
contrast to the position of the examiner, we find that the method
as set forth in claim 14 on appeal cannot be said to be the
natural result flowing from the operation of the apparatus of
Van Allen, and, more particularly, that the steps e), f) and g)
recited in claim 14 cannot be said to be inevitably present in
the operation of the apparatus of Van Allen. See, for example,
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
Even though it appears possible that the high pressure side of
the valve member (38) of Van Allen might move out of engagement
with the header (16) under some given set of circumstances if the
ports (52) and (68) were sized to permit a sufficient reduction
of the high pressure in the chamber (11), any such movement of
the valve member is contrary to the clear intent of Van Allen.
In this regard, we agree with the arguments made by appellant on
pages 11 through 14 of the brief and in paragraphs 9 through 14
of the declaration filed December 4, 1995 (as an attachment to
Paper No. 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007