Appeal No. 2005-2552
Application No. 10/418,528
fall together. Appellants provide a separate argument for
claim 8.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his disposition of the arguments raised by
appellants. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection over
De Young. De Young, like appellants, describes an apparatus for
modulating fluid flow through a first flow path by use of a
second flow path which diverts fluid from the first path. A
principal argument of appellants is that "De Young fails to
disclose any other rotated positions of holes 38, 40 besides
upstream or downstream relative to the direction of flow in the
main line 12" (page 8 of principal brief, second paragraph).
However, since De Young admittedly discloses that the inlets to
the second flow path can face upstream or downstream to control
flow through the first path, we agree with the examiner that the
apparatus of De Young is capable of rotating the inlet to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007