Appeal No. 97-2746
Application 08/399,693
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of these claims.4
Notwithstanding the foregoing deficiency in Fonden, air
compressors are well known and conventional sources of high
pressure air. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,003,822 to
McCarthy, which is of record in the instant application,
discloses a pneumatic brake system having an air compressor as
a source of high pressure air. As described by McCarthy,
1 denotes an air compressor which, through a safety
valve 1a, furnishes air under pressure of the order
of 125 lbs. per square inch to a main air receiver
or tank 2. The main air receiver 2 is connected, by
means of a pressure reducing valve 4 and a check
valve 5, to an auxiliary air receiver or tank 3 in
which the air pressure is less than that of receiver
2, that is, of the order of 100 lbs. per square inch
[column 1, lines 46 through 53].
In light of McCarthy’s disclosure, the application is
remanded to the examiner to consider (1) whether the subject
4 We would add that we are not aware of any authoritative
basis for the appellant’s view (see pages 9 and 10 in the
brief) that this rejection is inconsistent with the issuance
of the appellant’s parent U.S. Patent No. 5,398,130 and/or the
non-statutory double patenting rejection based thereon which
was made in the final rejection and subsequently withdrawn
(see note 3, supra). The appellant’s assertion that this
double patenting rejection was of the “obviousness type” is
unfounded and, even if true, would not necessarily support the
appellant’s position.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007