Appeal No. 2000-1230
Application No. 08/717,904
appellants disagree, noting that their valve opens inside the
tank (as shown in Fig. 6), whereas Kinsey’s valve "opens and
closes completely exteriorly of the machine part C" (reply
brief, page 3). We agree with this argument of appellants,
and will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 inasmuch there
is no teaching in the applied prior art of mounting the valve
element interiorly of the holding tank.
Claim 12 recites that the vacuum relief means is capable
of providing a particular sufficient airflow into the tank to
prevent damage to the tank. The examiner notes that Kinsey
discloses at page 2, lines 56 to 63, that the valve device is
adjustable, and we agree with his implicit conclusion that it
would have been obvious to adjust the Kinsey valve, when
mounted on the conventional holding tank, to allow sufficient
air flow to prevent collapse of the tank under the particular
operating parameters of the system with which the tank was
being used, keeping in mind that preventing collapse of the
tank would have been the reason that the valve would have been
provided in the first place.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007