Appeal No. 2005-2154 Page 6
Application No. 10/145,341
relief valve disclosed by McMillan and in the embodiments of Figures 3A, 3B and 4C of
the present application wherein the fluid entry port into the valve is within the baffle
chamber, downstream of the baffle forward surface, and would certainly estop
appellants from asserting that the claims before us in this appeal cover a nozzle having
a relief valve of the type disclosed by McMillan which senses pressure in the baffle
chamber rather than at the baffle forward surface.
The appellants' specification (page 10, lines 20-22) further evidences the
distinction between sensing pressure presented to forward baffle surface areas and
sensing fluid pressure generated within a chamber within the baffle. While this portion
does refer to sensing of pressure presented to the forward baffle surface areas as
"rather directly" and sensing of pressure generated within a chamber as "more
indirectly," it clearly conveys that sensing of pressure within a chamber within a baffle is
not sensing of pressure presented to the forward baffle surface areas.
The examiner relies on the statement in appellants' specification (page 14, lines
16-17) that the embodiments of Figures 3D and 3E sense water pressure "more or less
directly" at the baffle forward surface and appellants' failure to traverse the examiner's
determination in the election of species requirement mailed July 2, 2002 that "claims 1,
17 and 19 are generic" in their response filed July 26, 2002 to support the position that
these claims, which do not require that the sensing be done "directly," are sufficiently
broad to cover the embodiments of, for example, Figures 3A, 3B and 4C, wherein the
relief valve senses pressure in the baffle chamber and hence indirectly, according to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007