Appeal No. 2006-0523 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/282,658
Spiess does not describe a polygonal check valve (see answer at page 3). The
examiner relies on Jenni for teaching a polygonal check valve.
The appellant argues that Spiess does not describe a rod with a cylindrical
chamber containing a check valve like that defined in claim 9 on appeal. Rather, in
appellant's view the cylindrical chamber 96 which contains a valve 101 is contained in a
cylindrical chamber within the piston rather than the rod.
We agree with the appellant. The chamber 96 of Speiss is disposed in the head
portion of piston 14 (see Fig. 1). In addition, rod 12 does not include first and second
portions respectively adjacent first and second chambers of the cavity as required by
claim 9.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim
9 and claims 10, 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatenable over Spiess in view of Jenni and further in view of Shimoda.
Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and thus includes the subject matter of a
cylindrical chamber having a check valve therein formed in the rod. As we noted above,
Spiess does not describe a rod with a cylindrical chamber having a check valve therein
nor a rod that has first and second portions respectively adjacent first and second
chambers of the cavity. We have reviewed the disclosure of Shimoda and found that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007