Appeal No. 1997-3513
Application No. 08/263,700
apply this teaching to Sato, and use a soft material such as
copper for the passageway of Sato, the claimed invention would
not be the result. Additionally, we note the
presence in the claims of limitations directed to the specific
hardness of the ball and the specific smoothness of the
surface area. With respect to these limitations, the examiner
has stated that optimizing the hardness of the material, the
size, the diameter and the smoothness is well within the
purview of the artisan, inasmuch as “[o]nce the general
conditions of a claim are known[,] to optimize parameters is
obvious.” (answer, page 6). However, in our view, as
discussed above, the prior art cited does not indicate the
direction the parameter should be changed for any improved
result. For example, in Sato, both polymer and steel sealing
members are suggested. Furthermore, it is unclear whether
Sato contemplates plastic deformation of the passageway or
merely the elastic expansion thereof. With respect to Chaney,
both resilient and nonresilient spherical sealing members are
disclosed. Finally, Rozmus uses a passageway material which,
as pointed out by appellant in the reply brief, is orders of
magnitude softer than the passageway material claimed (page 4,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007