Appeal No. 2006-0145
Application 09/639,850
We agree with appellants that there is nothing in the applied references that would suggest the
necessity or the desirability of using the diaphragm driven by the drive assembly such that a stress is
applied to the diaphragm that is limited to less than, or equal to, 75% of the elastic limit of the
diaphragm.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejections of claims 2-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 because
none of the other applied references (Klein, Kawahata, Miller, APA) provides for the deficiencies of
Black and Mastromatteo.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Anita Pellman Gross )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK/cam
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007