Appeal No. 97-1243
Application 08/443,301
teach a cut-off valve such as the claimed cut-off
valve 25, Stocker cannot teach the effects of having
a shut-off valve 25.
This argument is continued on pages 4-5 of the brief,
wherein appellant argues:
In the remarks by the Examiner, it appears that
the Examiner has only considered the apparatus of
Fig. 7 of Stocker et al and the apparatus of Figs.
2a and 2b of appellant’s application. The claim[]
set[s] forth the shut-off valve 25 which has been
shown in Fig. 1. Appellants fail to find a teaching
of a valve in Stocker et al which functions as the
claimed valve 25. Therefore, in addition to
appellant’s application not having a vent hose as
set forth by Stocker et al, appellant has added the
shut-off valve shown in Fig. 1.
Accordingly, it is believed that Stocker et al
do not anticipate claim 1 because of requiring the
added vent hose and for not disclosing the claimed
shut-off valve.
Concerning the examiner’s alternative rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, appellant argues on page 5 of the brief:
The claim has been rejected in the alternative
under 35 USC 103. For the reasons given above, it
is believed that Stocker et al do not teach the
claimed invention. Particularly, appellants believe
that there is no teaching of the claimed shut-off
valve which connects with both the inlet and the
outlet of the apparatus set forth by appellants.
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claim, the prior
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007