Ex Parte Lutz et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2004-2154                                                               Page 4                
             Application No. 10/067,049                                                                               


                    We, like appellants, find no support for the examiner’s position that Pradel’s                    
             bottom valve 4a reduces flow from the equalizing space to the working space as called                    
             for in claim 7.  While movement of the piston rod outward creates a negative pressure                    
             in the lower working space, thereby opening the bottom valve and drawing damping                         
             medium from the equalizing space to the working space, Pradel provides no disclosure                     
             that the bottom valve comprises structure which reduces flow as the piston rod moves                     
             outward.2  Accordingly, the subject matter of appellants’ claim 7 cannot be considered                   
             to be anticipated3 by Pradel.                                                                            
                    With regard to the rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being anticipated by Pradel, we                 
             likewise find no support in Pradel for the examiner’s position that the predetermined                    
             breaking point recited in claim 8 “can be readable as the valve disc on the bottom valve                 
             4a, which breaks to open a bypass connecting said at least one working space to said                     
             equalizing space when damping medium exceeds a predetermined pressure in said                            
             working space” (answer, page 4).  Pradel provides no indication that any portion of the                  
             bottom seal 4a, including the flexible disc thereof which presumably flexes under                        
             pressure to allow fluid flow through the valve, is designed to break when the damping                    

                    2 The Alliquant patent (U.S. Pat. No. 3,958,673) referred to by the examiner on page 6 of the     
             answer has been given no consideration in deciding this appeal since it was not positively included in the
             statement of the rejection.  See  In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n. 3 (CCPA     
             1970).                                                                                                   
                    3 To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single  
             prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.  Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 
             1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.,    
             927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                                              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007