Appeal No. 2002-0021
Application No. 09/417,439
Bosch GmbH 93 21 431 U1 Mar. 5, 1998
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brehm in view of Bosch GmbH. According to the examiner, Brehm
shows the claimed valve except for not having two parallel throttling bores, while Bosch
GmbH shows a similar valve with two parallel bores. The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used two parallel
throttling bores as taught in Bosch GmbH in the valve of Brehm “to similarly provide for
a desired throttling flow rate” (final rejection, page 2).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejection
and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed November 1,
2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed May 21, 2001) for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12,
filed April 16, 2001) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007