Appeal No. 2002-0797
Application No. 08/900,977
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). If
the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection
is improper and will be overturned. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Representative claim 1 is directed to the combination of a
electric-operated pressure-regulated fluid flow control valve and
a pressure regulator. Claim 1 states that the fluid flow control
valve
has a frequency response characteristic which renders
the valve mechanism [of the control valve] incapable of
faithfully tracking the fundamental frequency of an
electric control signal whose fundamental frequency is
greater than a predetermined frequency that, when
applied in control of the valve mechanism, positions
the valve mechanism to a position corresponding to a
most recent time average of the electric control signal
free of any significant pulsing of the valve mechanism.
Claim 19, the only other independent claim on appeal,
contains similar language.
Cook ‘785, the primary reference in the standing rejection
of the appealed claims, is directed to a system for purging of a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007