Appeal No. 97-1243
Application 08/443,301
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Stocker. The examiner considers that
Stocker discloses in Figure 7 a pump that corresponds to the
pump set forth in claim 1 with the possible exception of the
venting of the electromagnetic valve. With respect to this
feature, the examiner considers that “[t]he electromagnetic
valve of the device shown in Fig. 7 of . . . [Stocker] appears
to be vented. In any event, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to vent the electromagnetic valve
in order to provide cooling or dissipate heat” (final
rejection, page 2).
Appellant’s argument in response to the positions taken
by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claim centers on the
shut-off valve requirements of claim 1. For example, on pages
3-4 of the brief, appellant argues:
. . . [A]ppellants fail to find the claimed shut-off
valve 25 provided between the supply conduit and the
delivery conduit. . . . There is no shut-off valve
such as valve 25 as set forth in the claimed subject
matter and shown in appellant’s Fig. 1. Since
Stocker et al do not teach the valve 25, then
Stocker et al cannot meet the terms of the claim[]
which set[s] forth “when the shut-off valve 25 is
closed, ambient air induced in the delivery space 57
is delivered via the second non-return valve 29 into
the tank system.[”] Since Stocker et al do not
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007