Ex Parte Ullein et al - Page 2



            Appeal No. 2005-1727                                                                                          
            Application No. 09/925,013                                                                                    

                                           THE INVENTION                                                                  
                  The invention relates to “a chain tensioner as used in chain                                            
            drives of internal combustion engines for tensioning the chain                                                
            during operation” (specification, page 1).  Representative claim 1                                            
            reads as follows:1                                                                                            
                  1. A chain tensioner, comprising:                                                                       
                  a tensioner piston bearing upon a chain;                                                                
                  a cylinder guiding the piston for movement in a direction of                                            
            the chain and bounding with the piston a pressure chamber for                                                 
            receiving hydraulic fluid;                                                                                    
                  a leakage gap for migration of hydraulic fluid from the                                                 
            pressure chamber; and                                                                                         
                  a control member for at least reducing the leakage gap in                                               
            size, when a pressure in the pressure chamber increases.                                                      
                                           THE PRIOR ART                                                                  
                  The references relied on by the examiner to support the final                                           
            rejection are:                                                                                                
            Stief et al. (Stief)       5,931,754           Aug. 03, 1999                                                  
            Smith                      6,361,458           Mar. 26, 2002                                                  
                                                                                                                         
                  1  In claim 27, the term “the first seat” lacks a proper antecedent basis and the term                  
            “circumferential grooves” is inconsistent with the underlying specification which more accurately describes   
            the subject grooves as “circumferentially spaced grooves.”  Steps should be taken in the event of further     
            prosecution to correct these informalities.                                                                   



                                                  2                                                                       











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007