Appeal No. 2001-0724
Application No. 09/251,602
Miller is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.
We are informed by appellant’s specification (page 2, ll. 14-29) that known
engine throttle torque motor arrangements required difficult and complex operations to
install and calibrate, and further that appellant wished to develop a torque motor that
was easy to assemble, install, and calibrate. Miller discloses (particularly at col. 2, ll.
34-36 and col. 3, ll. 20-22) that using precalibrated sub-assemblies eases assembly of
a valve and valve actuator. We therefore find that Miller also meets the second
criterion for analogous prior art.
Appellant also alleges that “[i]t is error on the part of the Examiner to propose
such a combination because it requires total reworking of not only the structure, but the
function of the teachings of the reference.” (Brief at 3.) “Claim 1 clearly recites that the
torque motor subassembly has the shaft extending outwardly therefrom prior to
assembly onto the throttle body.” (Id.) However, we do not find such requirement in
apparatus claim 1; appellant’s argument thus appears to be not commensurate in
scope with the claims which define the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein said motor housing, said rotor, said stator with said coil,
said shaft means and said mounting member are formed in a sub-assembly and pre-
calibrated.” The functional clause is not specific with respect to any arrangement of the
structures so as to modify the structures previously set forth in the claim. Moreover,
process steps per se cannot serve to limit the product claims. See In re Stephens, 345
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007