Appeal No. 2004-0546
Application No. 09411793
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer. We will also sustain the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Appellants do not present a substantive argument against the
examiner's § 112 rejection. Rather, appellants submitted an
amendment after final rejection to obviate the examiner's
rejection. However, the examiner did not enter appellants'
amendment. Consequently, the examiner's § 112 rejection of
claims 39 and 40 remains of record and has not been rebutted by
appellants. Accordingly, we will, per force, sustain the
rejection.
We now turn to the examiner's § 103 rejection of all the
appealed claims. There is no dispute that Ewing, sharing a
common assignee with appellants, discloses the features of the
claimed control valve assembly with the exception of the valve
member position sensor which senses the linear displacement of
the rack and generates an output signal representative of the
position of the valve member (paragraph (D) of claim 1).
However, as explained by the examiner, Kawai evidences that such
valve member position sensors, such as appellants' rotary
potentiometer, were known in the art for determining and
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007