Appeal No. 2002-0797
Application No. 08/900,977
utilized to operate the prior art systems is simply not relevant
to the claimed subject matter.3
Second, it is not clear precisely what teachings of Cook
‘082 the examiner is relying upon. More particularly, it is not
clear whether the examiner is relying on the teachings of Cook
‘082 concerning (1) the improved sonic flow purge valve that
comprises the invention of Cook ‘082, or (2) the purge valves of
systems such as those discussed in the “BACKGROUND” section of
Cook ‘082 in existence at the time of patentee’s invention, or
(3) both (1) and (2).
Third, it is not clear what the examiner means by terms such
as “linear response,” “linear flow” and “linear solenoid,” as
used, for example, in the statement on page 3 of the final
rejection that
both applicant’s [sic, applicants’] valve and the
system of Cook (‘785) use a pressure regulator,
downstream of the solenoid to create the linear
response needed. While it is true that Cook (‘082) can
produce non-linear flow as noted, the claims do not
require linear flow but merely a linear solenoid valve
which is shown by Cook (‘082).
3Appellants’ recurring argument (see, for example, the
sentence spanning page 6 and 7 of the brief) that there is no
teaching in the applied prior art of utilizing a control signal
of a particular frequency is not relevant to the obviousness
issues presented here in that the appealed claims are not
directed to a method of operating a purge system.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007