Appeal No. 1997-4373 Page 5
Application No. 08/332,656
4. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fujimori and Masahiko, as applied to claim 3
above, and further in view of Abe.
5. Claims 23, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Masahiko in view of Abe.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 38)
and supplemental answer (Paper No. 40) and Paper No. 39 and
the reply brief (Paper No. 42) for the respective positions of
the examiner and the appellants with regard to the merits of
these rejections.3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the4
3 The answer included new grounds of rejection of claims 1 through 6, 23
and 25 through 27. In response thereto, the appellants (Paper No. 39) filed
an amendment to claim 1 and arguments directed to the rejection of claims 23,
25 and 26. In response to that amendment, the examiner mailed a supplemental
answer (Paper No. 40) including further new grounds of rejection of claims 1
through 6 and 27 and maintaining the rejection of claims 23, 25 and 26 set
forth in the answer.
4 The recitation in claim 1 of "means positioned downstream of said
delivery valve for sensing the pressure in said conduit means," appears to be
inconsistent with the disclosure on pages 21 and 23 of the appellants'
specification, which indicates that the pressure sensor (168) communicates
with and senses pressure in the plunger bore (61), which is upstream of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007