Appeal No. 98-2141
Application No. 08/427,653
disagrees with this assertion (answer, page 7) , but in our 2
view, whether or not Jones’ pump 42 would be as stated by
appellant in his declaration does not affect our conclusion of
obviousness.
With regard to Jones, appellant argues that Jones does
not disclose a vent as recited in part (f) of claim 1 because
the reservoir 24 of Jones is continuously pressurized, even
when vapor is being vented through vent 40 (brief, page 15,
reply brief, pages 5 to 8), whereas in appellant’s apparatus,
the vent depressurizes the reservoir so that it is at the same
pressure as the fuel tank. The problem with this argument is
that it is not commensurate with the language of the claim.
As described by Jones at col. 7, lines 9 to 22, the vent
(orifice) 40 vents accumulated vapor from the reservoir 24,
until fuel in the reservoir rises to a normal level and the
float 36 rises in response thereto and closes the vent. Since
this is all that part (f) of claim 1 requires, the claimed
vent reads on the vent of Jones. While the claimed vent may
2Although the declaration was submitted with the proposed
amendment after final rejection, supra, which was denied
entry, the examiner evidently entered the declaration since he
referred to it in his answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007