Appeal No. 2002-1874 Page 5
Application No. 09/553,302
ammonia that rises in the tube 25 and exits through the passages 28 into
the chamber 22.
As we understand the operation of the system from this explanation, the ammonia
entering tank 17 from outlet 49 is in liquid form, some of which liquid flashes into the
gaseous state after it enters the tank. Thus, port 49 provides ammonia in the liquid
state, and therefore is a liquid inlet port. This being the case, it is our view that the
examiner erroneously has designated port 49 to be the gas inlet port required by the
claims (Answer, page 3). Thus, from our perspective, the Mair tank is in fluid
communication only with a gas outlet port (relief valve 23), another gas outlet port (51),
a liquid outlet port (70), and two liquid inlet ports (61 and 49), and Mair fails to disclose
or teach the gas inlet port required by all of the claims.
This deficiency is not alleviated by consideration of the teachings of Marshall,
which was applied by the examiner for its teaching of the type of floating plug valve set
forth in the claims, for even considering, arguendo, that suggestion exists to combine
the references in the manner proposed by the examiner, the result would not be the
invention recited in independent claims 5, 15 and 18. The applied references therefore
do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
recited in the three independent claims, and we agree with the appellants that the
rejection cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007