Appeal No. 2002-0607
Application No. 09/258,138
(2) claim 2, unpatentable over Sumida in view of Dietrich,
and further in view of Stumpp;
(3) claim 3, unpatentable over Sumida in view of Dietrich,
and further in view of Belshaw;
(4) claim 4, unpatentable over Sumida in view of Dietrich,
and further in view of Itoh; and
(5) claim 5, unpatentable over Sumida in view of Dietrich,
and further in view of Berton.
Discussion
A review of the prosecution history of the present
application reveals the following:
! In the first office action (Paper No. 5), claim 1
was rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sumida. In
support of this position, the examiner stated
(page 2) that Sumida teaches “a compression
between the two [unspecified] housing parts and an
[unspecified] elastic ring is used to create
further compression.”
! In the final rejection (Paper No. 7), claim 1
(amended) was rejected by the examiner under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumida
in view of Dietrich. The examiner stated (page 2)
that Sumida “applies as per the last office
action,” and that Dietrich “teaches a housing part
and a valve body within the housing part with the
valve body having two diameters and a seal located
at the shoulder between the diameters and between
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007