Appeal No. 2002-0607
Application No. 09/258,138
this shoulder and the cylinder head (16) (see
Figure 1).” No further explanation of how the
cited references are to be applied against claim 1
is set forth.
! In response to appellants’ request for
reconsideration (Paper No. 8), the examiner next
issued an advisory letter (Paper No. 9) which
included the following statement: “Dietrich
clearly shows a seal surrounding the tip of the
inner valve member. While this seal is not
labeled[,] the drawing shows it against the valve
tip and thus it will stop cylinder gases as
claimed.”
! In the answer (Paper No. 14), we are informed
(page 3) that “[t]he grounds for rejection of the
claims are found in the Final Rejection of June 9,
2000.” In the “Response to Argument” section of
the answer (page 4), the examiner further states,
among other things, that Sumida “clearly teaches
all of the limitations of claim 1 with the
possible exception of the means ‘for preventing
combustion gas in a cylinder from leaking to said
housing main body’” and that Dietrich is cited to
show a seal “located as claimed.”
! In the unauthorized supplemental examiner’s
answer3 (Paper No. 17), the examiner states (page
2) that claim 1 does not require the valve main
body to be a unitary body, that making the valve
body into a one piece structure would have been
obvious, and that in Sumida the sleeve (40) and
the elements (14) and (7) form a valve main body
having large and small diameter portions with a
shoulder therebetween.
3 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1) states that a supplemental examiner’s answer is
not permitted, unless the application is remanded by the Board for that
purpose. Given our disposition of the present appeal, the examiner’s
disregard for Office procedure in this respect is of no moment.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007