Appeal No. 2005-2154 Page 5
Application No. 10/145,341
surface exceeds a preselected relief valve pressure. In other words, the dispositive
issue in this case is whether sensing of pressure in the cylinder 2 constitutes sensing of
fluid pressure “on a baffle forward surface” as called for in appellants’ claims. For the
reasons which follow, we conclude that sensing of pressure in the cylinder 2 is not
sensing of fluid pressure "on a baffle forward surface" and that, accordingly, McMillan
does not anticipate claims 1, 17 and 19.
First, while a person of ordinary skill in the art might well understand the sensed
pressure in McMillan's cylinder 2 to be fairly indicative of the fluid pressure on the
exterior surface 16 of baffle-piston 1, which corresponds to the baffle forward surface
recited in appellants' claims 1, 17 and 19, such a person would not consider McMillan's
valve 2a, with its fluid passage 3 disposed well within the cylinder 2, to be sensing the
fluid pressure on the exterior surface 16 of the baffle-piston 1. Rather, one of ordinary
skill in the art would consider the valve 2a to be sensing fluid pressure in the cylinder 2.
Second, the appellants made clear in their preliminary amendment filed May 14,
2002 that (1) the present specification discloses two types of relief valves, with the first
type, as illustrated for example in Figures 3A, 3B and 4C, being similar to the McMillan
pilot valve in that it senses pressure within a baffle chamber and the second type, as
illustrated in Figures 3C, 3D, 3E and 4D for example, sensing pressure at a baffle
forward surface area and (2) the claims of the present application relate to the second
type of relief valve. These statements evidence that appellants' recitation in the claims
of sensed fluid pressure on a baffle forward surface was intended to exclude the type of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007