Appeal No. 2005-1727
Application No. 09/925,013
limitation in the claim, the examiner points to Stief’s disclosure
of “the gap formed between the chambers 8 and 9, and . . . gap 14”
(answer, page 3) and explains that
during extension of the piston 2 the pressure in chamber
8 decreases and the ball opens from its seat so that
fluid flows through the gap between chambers 8 and 9 and
the gap 14, [and] during retraction of the piston the
pressure in chamber 8 increases to dampen the effects of
the chain, and the ball of the valve closes the gap
between the chambers 8 and 9 allowing fluid to only flow
through the gap 14 [answer, pages 3 and 4].
As indicated above, the leakage gap recited in claim 1 is for
“migration of hydraulic fluid from the pressure chamber” (emphasis
added). The examiner’s determination that the passage which is
associated with the non-return valve 7 and which connects Stief’s
high pressure chamber 8 and oil reservoir 9 constitutes such a
leakage gap is not well founded. Stief provides no factual basis
which would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to view this
passage as a leak gap which permits migration of hydraulic fluid or
oil from the pressure chamber 8. As disclosed by Stief, the only
gap which allows such migration is leak gap 14. Neither non-return
valve 7 nor any other structure in the Stief tensioner embodies a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007