Appeal No. 2005-1843 Page 7
Application No. 09/585,222
The appellant argues that claim 7 is not anticipated by Matousek since
Matousek's housing 10 is not a barstock body having outerwalls defined by a
substantially uniform transverse cross-section circumscribed about a central longitudinal
axis. We agree for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
independent claims 1 and 7, and claims 2 and 5 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
Claim 6
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matousek.
Claim 6 reads as follows:
A method of forming a barstock body fluid control valve using reduced
barstock size and a standard size valve stem, the method comprising the steps
of:
selecting the reduced size barstock having a substantially uniform
transverse cross-section defining an outerwall configuration formed about a
longitudinal center line and cutting the reduced barstock size to length;
forming a valve body by machining flat surfaced ends on said reduced
barstock size perpendicular to said barstock outer wall;
defining a throughbore axis offset from and parallel to the Iongitudinal
centerline of the barstock;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007