Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 14
Application No. 09/258,712
Claims 2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10
The appellants have grouped claims 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 as standing or falling
together.5 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10
fall with claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to
4, 6, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
Claims 9 and 21
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-7) that claims 9 and 21 recite that the nozzle
chamber is at least partially defined by the upper tip component and that Sturman flatly
does not show this feature. We agree. In our view, Sturman's passage 116 through
housing member (i.e., the upper tip component) 108 is not part of a nozzle chamber.
While Sturman's nozzle member (i.e., the lower tip component) 104 and the needle
valve 120 define a nozzle chamber such nozzle chamber does not extend upwardly into
the housing member 108. In fact, we agree with the appellants that the fuel supply
passage 116 ends where the nozzle chamber begins in nozzle member 104. Thus, the
subject matter of claims 9 and 21 is not readable on Sturman.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
5 See page 3 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007