Appeal No. 2003-0222
Application 09/555,910
identical and any variations disclosed are deemed to be
obvious in light of Sanctuary. The yielding zones are
downstream of one of the valve seats and upstream of
another. The same can be said for the instant invention.
There is a spherical portion facing the inlet as well as the
outlet. The lips are considered to be spherical surface
portions. The rejections are deemed to be proper.
In the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 19), the examiner has
rejected claims 11, 13, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) “as
being anticipated by Sanctuary” and again not provided any
indication of what elements or components in the Sanctuary patent
are considered to correspond to the elements set forth in claims
11, 13, 14 and 17 on appeal, or provided any pertinent or cogent
commentary responsive to appellants’ arguments.
Appellants have argued in both the brief (page 5) and reply
brief that the requirement for yielding zones in the spherical
portion of the shutter element of claim 11 located downstream of
the seat with respect to a pressure zone along a face of the
shutter element exposed to the fluid in the inlet in the closure
position of the shutter element, is not disclosed in Sanctuary.
More specifically, appellants have pointed out that the entirety
of the flange (33) and its edge (34) in the ball valve-closed
position in Sanctuary contacts the seat (17), i.e., that no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007