Appeal No. 1997-3704
Application 08/572,183
“predetermined value of overpressure” to release the
overpressure “at a selectively controlled rate.”
We are not persuaded by this argument, which we view as
another attempt to establish nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon
a combination of prior art disclosures. See Paper No. 14,
page 12. While Ponczek does disclose that the pressure relief
valve 78, which includes rivet 82 and resilient adhesive 85,
will actuate or “blow” upon a predetermined increase in
pressure, the reference does not suggest that this actuation
must be explosive for the pressure relief valve to operate
properly. The affirmed rejections are based on the combined
teachings of Preiss, Harris and Ponczek. As appellant
recognizes (request for rehearing, page 2), Harris
specifically teaches a plug 16 for controlling the admission
of gases to a Bourdon gauge to safeguard the Bourdon tube
against rupture. We cannot find in the record either evidence
or a well-reasoned argument why Ponczek’s pressure relief
valve would not be capable of releasing an overpressure
condition in a Bourdon tube at a selectively controlled rate
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007