Appeal No. 97-2602
Application 08/422,795
invention without undue experimentation is not well founded. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1
through 8.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 8 rests on
the examiner’s conclusion that independent claims 1 and 6, and claims 2 through 5, 7 and
8 which depend therefrom, are rendered indefinite by the recitations in claims 1 and 6 that
the disk or disk portion has the shape of a diagonal cross-section of a round rod. For the
reasons discussed above, however, the examiner’s concerns about the clarity of this
definition of the shape of the disk or disk portion are unfounded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 1 through 8.
Finally, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2
and 5 through 8 as being anticipated by Miyairi or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 3 and 4 as being unpatentable over Miyairi.
As pointed out above, independent claims 1 and 6 require a butterfly valve disk or
disk portion having the shape of a diagonal cross-section of a round rod. In short, Miyairi’s
disclosure of butterfly valve disk 3, in all its various embodiments, simply does not teach,
and would not have suggested, a butterfly valve disk having this shape.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007