Appeal No. 1999-0055 Page 7
Application No. 08/703,545
claim 30. We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 30 or of claims 31-44, which
depend therefrom.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to independent claim 16, which contains
the same structural limitations but defines the valve seat members in terms of a product-
by-process recitation. Nevertheless, the resulting structure of the valve seat members is
the same as in claim 30, and the same reasoning applies with regard to the propriety of
the rejection.
The rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-23 and 25-29 is
not sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
It would appear that the novelty of this invention resides in the combination of a
valve body with a seal of particular construction. However, there is no indication that a
search was conducted in Class 277, joint packing, and the application is remanded to the
examiner for this purpose.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 16-23 and 25-44 as being unpatentable over Freed and
Conley is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007