Appeal No. 2005-1843 Page 10
Application No. 09/585,222
Claims 3 and 8
We have reviewed the reference to Dicky applied in the rejection of claims 3 and
8 but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Matousek discussed
above with respect to claims 1 and 7.3 Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matousek in view of Dicky.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Matousek is reversed; the decision of the
examiner to reject 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 is reversed; and the
3Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and independent claim 8 includes the same
limitation as claim 7 not taught by Matousek (i.e., a valve including a barstock body
having outerwalls defined by a substantially uniform transverse cross-section
circumscribed about a central longitudinal axis).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007