Appeal No. 1999-1530 Page 7
Application No. 08/728,607
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 10
We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claim 10 adds to parent claim 1 the further limitation
that the sealing member and base "form a water-tight
compartment" for
the first and second electromagnetic valves, the reservoir and
the damper.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-9) that Ohta's
structure does not appear to be water-tight because it does
not have a seal about the periphery of the cover, nor can it
accommodate such a seal. We find this argument to be
unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, the appellants have argued the deficiency of Ohta
on an individual basis, however, nonobviousness cannot be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007