Appeal No. 1997-4117
Application No. 08/344,746
In each of the applied patents, the channels are shown as
having arcuate bottoms and the channels are separated from
each other by arcuate wall sections. Neither reference3
teaches nor suggests a square, hexagonal or pentagonal shaped
piston body with planar exterior surfaces.
Since all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 27 are not
suggested by the prior art, it follows that a prima facie case
of obviousness has not been established by the examiner. See
In re Royka, supra. Dependent claims 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and
20 contain all of the limitations of their respective
independent claim. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 6, 8 through 10, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
The rejections of claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Our review of Ford, which is used in combination with
Duell and Golestan to reject claims 7 and 15, reveals that the
reference fails to supply the deficiencies in the Duell-
These wall sections are illustrated as sections "A" and "B" on page 83
and 9 of the brief.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007