Appeal No. 2003-0222
Application 09/555,910
with the seat (17), it is clear to us that Sanctuary has no
yielding zones disposed 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, as required in claim 11 on appeal.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Sanctuary fares no better than the
rejection discussed above. In the instance of the obviousness
rejection, the examiner has “deemed” each of the differences
between that which is claimed by appellants and that which might
be present in Sanctuary to be “design choice” or “an obvious
matter of design choice,” and asserted that the structure seen in
Sanctuary “is deemed to be a full equivalent” (answer, pages
3-4). The examiner also contends that appellants have “failed to
state the criticality the different shapes bring to the
invention.” For the reasons set forth on pages 5 through 8 of
the brief, we agree with appellants that the examiner has failed
to put forth a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007