Appeal No. 2003-1757
Application 10/003,202
valve face and the fillet area are formed from the same metal (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 4)).
The examiner responds that “appellant appears to be trying to stretch the ‘same metal’ limitation”
when “[t]he claim specifically recites that the valve face is formed around the fire contacting
face” (answer, pages 7-8).
When the plain language of appealed claim 1 is considered in light of the written
description in the specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), we agree with appellant that the poppet valve
as claimed is made from “a same metal,” including the valve face and the fillet area. See, e.g.,
specification FIG. 6.
Consequently, the examiner’s proposed modification of the poppet valve of Cummings
Fig. 1 already modified by removing fins 13, by adding the alloy to the valve face would not
result in the claimed poppet valve as encompassed by appealed claim 1 which requires
manufacturing the valve out of “a same metal.” Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007