Appeal No. 2002-0607
Application No. 09/258,138
the applied prior art and appealed claim 1, (3) precisely how the
primary reference to Sumida would have to be modified to make up
for any such differences, (4) why any proposed modification would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, or (5) how
the proposed modification(s) would result in the claimed subject
matter as a whole. In addition, the examiner has not adequately
addressed appellants’ arguments throughout the main and reply
briefs regarding the alleged ambiguity of Dietrich with respect
to the construction of its fuel injector valve main body and the
element at the base of Dietrich’s valve main body purported by
the examiner to be a seal element. Nor has the examiner
adequately addressed appellants’ argument on pages 3-5 of the
main brief to the effect that the combined teachings of the
applied references would not render obvious a fuel injection
valve having both a seal held between a cylinder head and a
shoulder defined between large and small diameter portions of the
valve main body (as set forth in the penultimate paragraph of
claim 1) and a securing means for securing the outer side of the
large diameter portion of the valve main body to the housing main
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007