Appeal No. 2005-1727
Application No. 09/925,013
control member for at least reducing leak gap 14 in size when
pressure in the pressure chamber increases.
Hence, Stief does not disclose each and every element of the
chain tensioner recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 2-4, 6-15, 17 and 18 as being
anticipated by Stief.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 19-22, 27-30, 32 and
33 as being unpatentable over Stief in view of Smith
Independent claims 28 and 32 contain limitations similar to
those in independent claim 1 relating to the leakage gap and
control member. More particularly, claim 28 recites a chain
tensioner comprising “a control member for regulating a fluid flow
through a leakage gap to the outside in dependence on a pressure in
the pressure chamber,” and claim 32 sets forth a chain tensioner
comprising “a second leakage gap for migration of hydraulic fluid
from the pressure chamber” and “a control member for reducing a
fluid flow through the second leakage gap, as the pressure in the
pressure chamber rises.”
The findings by the examiner (see pages 7-9 in the answer)
that these limitations are met by Stief’s non-return valve 7 and
the associated passage connecting high pressure chamber 8 and oil
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007