Appeal No. 2004-1072 Page 5
Application No. 09/868,150
During the movement of the disc-shaped armature 2, toward the abutment 6a as
the fluid pressure in the fluid passage 9, 9a is gradually increased by
advancement of the plunger shaft 1 thereinto, the forward end of the plunger
shaft 1 urges the check valve 10 and the bleeder valve 11 leftward against the
springs 12 and 13, respectively, thereby unblocking the opening 14 to place the
fluid passages 8, 8a and 9, 9a in communication with each other and make the
fluid pressure throughout all of these passages equal. Accordingly, variation of
the fluid pressure in the passage 8, 8a is conveyed without alteration to the
passage 9, 9a.
When the disc-shaped armature 2 is in the position shown by solid lines in
FIG. 1 as described above, and an electric current in the second direction
capable of generating a magnetomotive force substantially equal to the
magnetomotive force of the permanent magnet 4 is applied to the
electromagnetic coil 5, the magnetic flux in the magnetic path disappears and the
disc-shaped armature 2 is in a magnetically released state. Accordingly, the
plunger shaft 1 is quickly moved rightward in FIG. 1 by the fluid pressure in the
fluid passage 8, 8a. At this time, the check valve 10 initially substantially blocks
the opening 14. However, the bleeder valve 11 is in an open state to allow a
small amount of the fluid to pass through a choke passage (not shown) defined
between the check valve 10 and the bleeder valve 11. With the continued
rightward movement of the plunger shaft 1, the opening 14 is completely blocked
by the bleeder valve 11. Thus, the successive blocking of the opening 14 by the
check valve 10 and the bleeder valve 11 prevents a sudden increase of the fluid
pressure in the fluid passage 8, 8a.
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner (answer, pp. 3-4)
determined that the claimed first magnetic flux was disclosed by Uemura at column 2,
lines 1-3, and that the claimed second magnetic flux was disclosed by Uemura at
column 2, lines 7-24. The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-8) that Uemura does not
disclose two different magnetic flux circuits as set forth in claim 7 but instead discloses
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007