Appeal No. 2001-0373 Page 8
Application No. 09/122,255
1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977); Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d
1651, 1653 (Bd. of Pat. App. & Int. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Second,
after reviewing the disclosures of both Harris and Sorenson, we
conclude there is no disclosure in either reference that their
respective valves necessarily function in accordance with, or
includes, the above-noted claimed limitations (i.e., the "extent
limitation" or the "pressure controlling limitation").
Since all the limitations of claims 1 to 4 are not disclosed in
either Harris or Sorenson for the reasons set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007