Appeal No. 97-1243
Application 08/443,301
in the delivery space . . . is delivered via the second non-
return valve . . . into the tank system.”
In light of the above, it should be apparent that we
simply do not agree with appellant's argument on page 3 of the
brief that “[t]here is no shut-off valve [in Stocker] such as
valve 25 as set forth in the claimed subject matter . . . .”
As to the provision in Stocker of an external bypass hose to
provide ambient air to the pump space during diagnosis, we
observe that claim 1 is cast in open terminology (“A pump
appliance for a tank system of an internal combustion engine,
having . . .” (emphasis added)). This terminology does not
serve to preclude the presence of other elements, such as
Stocker’s bypass hose, in addition to those specified in the
claim. Accordingly, appellant’s argument to the effect that
Stocker does not anticipate the appealed claim because Stocker
requires an added vent tube is not persuasive in that it is
not commensurate in scope with the invention as claimed.
Concerning the examiner’s position that Stocker’s
electromagnetic valve is vented as claimed, and the examiner’s
alternative position that, in any event, it would have been
obvious to so vent Stocker’s electromagnetic valve, we note
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007