Appeal No. 2005-2154 Page 7
Application No. 10/145,341
examiner, pressure at the baffle forward surface, as well as the embodiments of, for
example, Figures 3C, 3D, 3E and 4D, wherein the relief valve inlet port is at the baffle
forward surface. Even assuming that the pressure in the baffle chamber is indicative of
the pressure at the baffle forward surface, as explained above, we agree with the
appellants that the sensing of pressure in the chamber is still sensing of pressure in the
chamber, not sensing of pressure at the baffle forward surface, as called for in
independent claims 1, 17 and 19. Further, even if appellants' response to the election
requirement can fairly be considered as a concession that claims 1, 17 and 19 are
"generic," the appellants have certainly never stated or implied that claims 1, 17 and 19
are generic to all of the embodiments disclosed in the present application, as opposed
to being generic to the embodiments comprising relief valves of the second type, such
as Figures 3C, 3D, 3E and 4D, for example.
In light of the above, we conclude that McMillan's relief valve 2a is not triggered
when sensed pressure on a baffle forward surface exceeds a preselected relief valve
pressure, as called for in independent claims 1, 17 and 19. The rejection of these
claims, as well as dependent claims 2-6 and 18, as being anticipated by McMillan thus
cannot be sustained.
The examiner's application of Williams provides no cure for the deficiency of
McMillan discussed above. It follows that the rejection of claims 8 and 12 which depend
from claim 1 as being unpatentable over McMillan in view of Williams also cannot be
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007