Appeal No. 2003-0222
Application 09/555,910
made out a prima facie case of anticipation based on the
Sanctuary patent. For this reason, and those put forth by
appellants in the brief and rely brief, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sanctuary.
In reaching our conclusion above vis-a-vis the examiner’s
rejection of claims 11, 13, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
we understand the requirement in appellants’ independent claim 11
for a shutter element having “yielding zones in the spherical
portion disposed downstream of said seat,” to be readable on
those portions or zones of the yieldable portion of the
ball/shutter element (13) at the inlet end of the valve that are
located completely downstream of, and thus not in contact with,
the ring seat (12). The “yielding zones” of appellants’
invention can most clearly be seen in Figures 5 and 6 of the
application drawings, particularly Figure 5. While the lip or
flange (33) of the ball (15) formed as a result of the recess
(32) extending into the ball in Sanctuary may well define a
yielding portion at the inlet end (12) of the valve, given that
the terminal edge (34) of that yielding portion is expressly
described in Sanctuary (col. 3, lines 17-18) as being in contact
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007