Appeal No. 2005-0880 7
Application No. 09/963,815
[t]he purpose of the liquid seal in Applicant’s
structure in combination with the mechanical seal is to
prevent or minimize the entrainment of air into the
filler tube during refueling. If air is entrained into
the filler tube, the air pushes the vapor into the
canister line and this places a load on the canister.
Applicant’s device prevents entrainment of air and
minimizes the loading of the canister during refueling.
The Examiner’s proposed combination of the prior
art of FIG. 5 of the present application with the
structure of FIG. 8 of Allison would still permit air
to be drawn into the filler tube through the vacuum
relief valve 102 [sic] of Allison.
The Examiner’s rejection is predicated upon
reworking the structure of the Allison ‘497 patent to
remove the vacuum relief valve 102 [sic] and prevent
the entrainment of air. This reworking would teach
away from or contravene the purpose of the Allison
structure. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
Examiner’s proposed combination, being predicated upon
reworking the reference in a manner teaching away from
the reference is arbitrary and not within the statutory
meaning of “obvious” [reply brief, pages 1 and 2].
The appellant’s position here is not persuasive. The
description of the admitted art in the instant specification
allows that “[f]low of fuel vapor to the atmosphere through tube
13a can occur if 13a vapor flow is not significantly limited”
(page 4). In other words, fuel vapor recirculated through tube
13a to the upper end 5a of filler tube 4a may escape to the
atmosphere, a problem which is self-evident given the
construction of the admitted prior art system. The cap-less
restrictor assembly 202 disclosed by Allison is expressly
designed to solve such a problem. The appreciation of the fuel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007