Appeal No. 1999-0082
Application No. 08/655,022
or from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
We agree with the examiner that Yuichi discloses the
basic regulator structure recited in claim 9 but lacks the
required projections and inner and outer flat faces. Where we
part company with the examiner is that the missing structure
is taught by Ohmi, for neither the description of the
structure provided in the reference nor the common definition
of “projection” supports the examiner’s position. From our
perspective, therefore, Ohmi does not disclose “projections”
spaced from the channels “to define concentrically disposed
inner flat faces and outer flat faces” with the inner flat
faces being axially spaced closer than the outer ones, as is
the examiner’s contention with regard to Figures 5 and 6.
There are three reasons for reaching this conclusion.
First, Ohmi has defined elements 33 and 34, which are
immediately adjacent to the channels of the device, as
“projections” (column 4, line 12). Interpreting Ohmi in this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007