Appeal No. 2002-1524 Page 6
Application No. 09/423,526
longitudinal axis“ as is required by claim 31. The appellants opine that as the poppet
moves away from the valve seat it will tilt, which will result in an “axial bending load”
being placed upon the spiral spring (Brief, page 6). However, Figure 2 indicates that a
space exists between the top of the spring coil and the rear face of the poppet, which
suggests that the poppet could tilt to the extent necessary to open the valve without
contacting the upper portion of the spring and imparting thereto a force other than along
its longitudinal axis, and the lateral movement of the poppet appears to be very small
and along a very slight arc. Thus, in the absence of evidence in support of the
appellants’ position, we are not convinced that the opening and closing of the poppet
would cause the spring to deform in the manner urged by the appellants, and we find
this argument of the appellants not to be persuasive.
The second argument is that the pin upon which the spring is mounted in the
Makusay device is not “guided in a recess of the closing body.” Pin 47, being mounted
within the spiral spring in the Makusay device, extends into a recess 43 in the closing
body and in our view is guided therein owing to its interaction with ball 49. This
arrangement meets the terms of the claim.
The rejection of claim 31 is sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007