Appeal No. 2002-0021
Application No. 09/417,439
By contrast, Bosch GmbH discloses an electromagnetically controlled pressure
valve of a different type and which includes throttling of the fluid medium from the
pressure source via holes (34) and control edge (45) of piston section (40) of control
piston (39). There is no discussion in Bosch GmbH concerning the particular
temperature related flow problem addressed by appellant, nor any discussion of how
the holes (34) serve to throttle pressure medium from the pressure source. The
emphasis in Bosch GmbH (see translation, pages 7-9) is on the throttling provided by
the narrowing ring space adjacent the first control edge (45) as the control piston (39)
moves to the right in Figure 1 due to increasing pressure in the ring space (46) acting
on piston section (41).
Like appellant, we consider that the modification of the valve of Brehm urged by
the examiner is merely a hindsight reconstruction based on the impermissible use of
appellant’s own disclosure and teachings as a blueprint for piecing together unrelated
elements of the relied upon prior art references. The examiner’s assertions (answer,
page 7) that it is “readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that using two bores
in 4,431,457 [Brehm] as suggested by 9,231,431 [Bosch GmbH] would provide a
greater flow while maintaining the same pressure drop that the throttle 57 of 4,431,457
provides” is entirely speculative and without foundation in the applied prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007