Appeal No. 2006-0523 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/282,658
Claims 30 to 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Silberstein in view of Jenni and Shimoda.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 28, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed May 13, 2005) and reply brief (filed August 25, 2005)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess in view of Jenni. We initially
note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner finds that Spiess describes the invention as recited in claim 9
including a check valve 101 disposed in a cylindrical chamber in a piston, except that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007