Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art Van Allen 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 rejections cannot be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we must agree with
appellant (brief, pages 14-15) that the language employed in
claim 17 on appeal is reasonably definite and accurately
defines appellant’s invention, since it is apparent from
appellant’s specification that the reversing valve member (24)
is “reciprocated” (i.e., moved alternatively back and forth)
between the first and second positions defined in claim 17.
The fact that there may be a significant time delay between
movement of the valve member to the second position and any
return movement of the valve member back to the first
position, and vice versa, is of no moment, since movement from
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007