Appeal No. 1999-2081
Application 08/786,228
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification
and applied prior art, including all the arguments
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well-
founded. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s § 103
rejection for essentially those reasons set forth in the
brief. We add the following for emphasizes and
completeness.
First, we note that the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant acknowledges that the secondary reference
of Lavine teaches a spring loaded ball valve in a
emulsification device. (Brief, page 7). However,
appellant correctly points out that Lavine and the other
applied references lack the recitation of a right angle
corner seat to define an orifice. (Brief, page 8). This
is made evident by a comparison of appellant’s figure
with Figure 8 of Lavine. Specifically, appellant’s seat
30 is different from Lavine’s cup shape member 39 having
centrally disposed opening 40 adaptive to be closed by a
ball valve member 41. We note that the examiner does not
address this difference in his answer. (Answer, pages 3-
5).
Assuming, arguendo, that appellant’s claimed
invention is a combination of old elements, we note that
the fact that elements are old in the art not does not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007