Appeal No. 2002-0797
Application No. 08/900,977
Fourth, the examiner’s discussion on pages 5-6 of the answer
of the relevance of the mode of operation depicted in the graphs
of Figures 2 and 3 of Cook ‘082 is not understood, in particular
with respect to how these drawings might be viewed as explicitly
teaching that the control valve of Cook ‘082 is incapable of
faithfully tracking the fundamental frequency of the electric
control signal during at least most modes of operation.
Fifth, to the extent the examiner’s rejection is founded on
the notion that it would have been obvious to replace the fluid
flow control valve of Cook ‘785 with a sonic flow control valve
of the type taught by Cook ‘082, we do not consider the rejection
to be well founded. Cook ‘082 teaches that the improved sonic
flow control valve disclosed therein improves upon prior art
purge systems (such as the earlier purge system of Cook ‘785) by
eliminating the need for a downstream pressure regulator (col. 1,
lines 63-66; col. 3, lines 49-53; col. lines 1-13). Hence, if
the skilled artisan were to follow the teachings of Cook ‘082 to
their logical conclusion in replacing the fluid flow control
valve 12B of Cook ‘785, said artisan would eliminate the pressure
regulator 62B because Cook ‘082 teaches that it would no longer
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007