Appeal No. 1997-3704
Application 08/572,183
where the Bourdon tube inlet is provided with a throttling
plug as taught by Harris.
At page 3 of the request for rehearing, appellant repeats
assertions made in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10
and 12, respectively), namely, that the pressure relief valve
78 of Ponczek could not be used in a Bourdon tube without
adversely affecting the tube, that the combination would
render Preiss inoperative or unsatisfactory for its intended3
purpose and lack of motivation to combine the teachings of the
references. These assertions were duly considered and found
to be wanting for the reasons expressed on pages 9 through 11
of our decision. Simply put, the appellant’s arguments are no
more persuasive now than they were before.
The appellant's request is granted to the extent of
reconsidering our decision, but is denied with respect to
making any changes therein.
Actually, the request for rehearing (page 4) refers to Ponczek as3
being rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. We presume the
reference to Ponczek is a typographical error and appellant intended to refer
to Preiss, since the rejections of claims 1 and 2 were based on a proposed
modification of Preiss, not Ponczek.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007