Appeal No. 2001-0079
Application No. 09/092,702
specific arrangement set forth in claims 10 and 22 in which heat
staking is provided between the ends of the shorter of the two
opposed pair of sides of the thin film.
We are aware that the Examiner (Answer, pages 9 and 12)
suggests that the particular manner of attaching the thin film
valve to the chassis panel would merely be “a mechanical design
expedient.” In our view, the Examiner’s reliance on design
considerations as a basis for the proposed modification of the
combination of Gross and Ujita is not well founded. Appellants’
disclosed intended function of assuring a secure backflow valve
closure with reduced flexing can only be achieved through the
particular valve attachment features set forth in claims 9, 10,
21, and 22.
We find that the Examiner’s assertion that the specific
claimed manner of attaching the thin film valve to the chassis
panel would be a matter of mechanical design expedient is totally
devoid of any support on the record. The Examiner must not only
make requisite findings, based on the evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the conclusion of obviousness. See In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007