Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
a first position to a second position and back to the first
position in the manner described in appellant’s specification
clearly results in “reciprocation” of the valve member.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, will not be sustained.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4, 6, 12, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated
by Van Allen, we are in full agreement with appellant’s
position as set forth on pages 7 through 14 of the brief and
in the reply
brief. Independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal expressly require
that the actuator therein be operable to reverse the direction
of the net differential pressure force acting on the valve
member to permit unseating of the valve member so that it may
be moved from one position to the other. Independent claim 12
requires an actuator for
moving said valve member relative to said seat
struc-ture between said first and second positions
along a path of travel where said valve member and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007