Appeal No. 2002-0607
Application No. 09/258,138
Sumida discloses (see Figure 3) a fuel injection valve
comprising a housing main body 14, a valve assembly within the
housing main body comprising a valve main body 9 having a large
diameter cylinder portion 8 and a small diameter cylinder portion
7, an annular seal 45, and a sleeve 40 press-fit onto the small
diameter cylinder portion of the valve main body. The seal 45 is
held between a shoulder portion 3 of a cylinder head 1 and an end
face 41 of the sleeve 40. In addition, the housing main body 14
is secured to the outer side of the large diameter cylinder
portion 8 of the valve main body 9 by means of coupling portion
16.
The examiner should determine whether claim 1 “reads on”
(and is thus anticipated by4) the above described construction of
Sumida. More particularly, the examiner should determine whether
(1) the end face 41 of sleeve 40 of Sumida comprises “a shoulder
4 Anticipation, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102, “requires the
presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed
invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d
1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); however, the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the appellants are
claiming, but only that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in
the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 722, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), (and overruled
in part on another issue) 775 F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007