Appeal No. 2002-0010
Application 09/073,308
Appellants argue that the entire valve of Fritchman is not
normally spaced from the valve seat, that no portion of the
appellants’ valve touches the valve seat in the unstressed
position, or that the reed valve of appellants is entirely
separated from the valve seat. None of these arguments finds any
basis in the claim language. The claim merely requires that the
valve be spaced from the valve seat. Given the canted nature of
Fritchman, a major portion of Fritchman is separated from the
seat when in unstressed condition. The arguments in the brief
are simply not commensurate with the scope of the claimed subject
matter.
Fritchman discloses that the distance the far side of the
valve is separated from the valve seat is one to two times the
thickness of the valve sheet itself. Since the valve sheet is
disclosed as 0.008 inches in thickness, the separation of the far
edge of the valve is between 0.008 and 0.016 inches inclusive.
This is well within appellants’ claimed 0.001 to 0.020 inches.
We note the argument in the brief is directed to 0.001 to 0.002
inches which is not the claimed or disclosed range. The
arguments in the brief are not credited. The subject matter of
claim 2 would have been prima facie obvious, anticipation being
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007