Appeal No. 2001-0724
Application No. 09/251,602
We turn to the rejection of claims 3, 5, and 7 under section 103 as being
unpatentable over Shiraki, Miller, and Kawahira. We do not sustain the rejection of
these claims, for the reasons advanced by appellant on pages 4 and 5 of the Brief.
Even if Kawahira is taken to disclose “a hollow (28) [Fig. 1] in the throttle body
(18) with the motor housing member (42) received in the hollow and the mounting
member (48) serving as a closure for the hollow” (Answer at 6), the structures of instant
claim 3 cannot be read in isolation, but as further limiting the structures of claim 1. In
particular, the rejection of claim 1 reads the combination of structures set forth as
including “throttle body” 1, “motor housing” 16, and “mounting member” 11, as shown in
Figure 1 of Shiraki. In view of the references applied, we do not find suggestion for the
subject matter as a whole for instant claim 3.
Similarly, with respect to claim 5, the rejection points out “mounting member” 48
having “electrical terminals” 50 in the Kawahira reference. However, Shiraki discloses a
“mounting member” 11, as contemplated by the rejection of claim 1. We agree with
appellant that the references as applied would not have suggested the subject matter of
claim 5.
Instant claim 7 requires that the motor housing is snap-locked onto the mounting
member. The “snap-locked” arrangement of appellant’s invention is described at page
4, lines 18 through 22 of the specification, and illustrated as slots 38 and tabs 40 in
instant Figure 3. We agree with appellant that the combination of references, including
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007