Appeal No. 1997-1796
Application 08/422,491
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which would even lead to consideration of whether the claim
language signifies that a “Jepson” claim format may be intended.2 Thus, we reverse this ground of
rejection.
Turning now to the grounds of rejection based on Oas,3 we find that not until the discussion of
appellant’s arguments at pages 5-6 of the answer does the examiner explain the basis for his finding that
the reference anticipates appealed claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellant submits (brief, page 6)
that the “helical surface of the check ring 31 [in Oas] does not provide any re-centering effect of the
valve” and argues that this structure in Oas does not correspond to or perform the function defined by
the limitations in claim 1 that the “check valve includes a seat that is orientated at a given angle to said
longitudinal axis” and the “support points [of the pin] are formed by flats oriented at said given angle
such that when said flats come into engagement with said seat said screw point is aligned about said
longitudinal axis” (emphasis supplied). The examiner responds that the appealed claims do not contain a
limitation with respect to “recentering” and finds, inter alia, that the “support points [of the pin] formed
by flats orientated at said given angle wherein said flats engage with said front seat [of the check valve]
so that said screw point is aligned about said longitudinal axis,” pointing out that “since Oas meets all of
the claimed limitations, a re-centering effect (although not claimed) is achieved” (id., page 6). The
examiner explains, in this respect, that “[a]s shown in [Oas] Figure 8B, flats of pin 65 engage with [sic]
front seat of check ring 31” (id.).
We have carefully compared the limitations of appealed claim 1 with the disclosure of Oas in
light of the examiner’s discussion of this reference and find that we agree with appellant. We interpret
the plain language of the limitations of claim 1 set forth above in light of the specification (e.g., pages 4
and 6, and specification Figure 4) as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, see
Morris, supra, to specify that the orientation of the seat of the check valve and of the flats is at an angle
1 Amendment of March 8, 1996 (Paper No. 7).
2 The examiner has dropped his criticism of the term “piston” (answer, page 5).
3 The references relied on by the examiner with respect to the grounds of rejection are listed at pages
2-3 of the answer.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007