Appeal No. 2003-0132
Application 09/741,356
of time,” which limitation is not in claim 9 of the application,
while claim 10 of the patent requires a pump control system
“including a preset target pressure” and that pump speed be
controlled “as a function of the differential pressure between
actual pressure of the pressure sensor and the preset target
pressure by the pump control system,” which limitations are not
present in claim 1 of the application.
In the final analysis, it is clear to us that the examiner
has not made out a prima facie case for obviousness-type double
patenting.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007