Appeal No. 2002-0797
Application No. 08/900,977
regulate vapor flow to the engine” and also “that is it known to
use such a valve in combination with a regulator downstream of
the valve to eliminate non-linear flow due to pressure
fluctuations.” Based on these findings, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious “to modify Cook (‘785) by
constructing the solenoid valve as taught by Cook (‘082, prior
art) since the latter taught that it was known to use such a
valve in combination with a pressure regulator . . . ” (final
rejection, page 3). Implicit in the above is the examiner’s
position that the control valve 12B of the Figure 5 purge system
of Cook ‘785 does not correspond to the claimed control valve,
and that when the Figure 5 purge system of Cook ‘785 is modified
by constructing the control valve 12B thereof “as taught by
Cook,” the modified Figure 5 purge system would include a fluid
flow valve and pressure regulator combination that corresponds in
all respects to the subject matter of claim 1.
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by appellants in the brief and by the examiner in the final
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007