Appeal No. 2006-0523 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/282,658
Shimoda does not cure the deficiency noted above for the Spiess and Jenni
combination. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 21 to 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatenable over Jenni in view of Shimoda.
The examiner is of the opinion that Jenni describes the invention as recited in
claim 21 except that Jenni does not describe a check valve having linear engagement
surfaces between the flat surfaces. The examiner relies on Shimoda for teaching linear
engagement surfaces between flat portions of the valve (Fig. 8) and concludes it would
have been obvious to place the linear engagement surfaces of Jenni between flat
portions of the valve as taught by Shimoda as such would be an obvious design choice
and would improve the flow characteristics of the valve. (final rejection page 4).
We agree with the appellant that :
The Jenni reference is directed to providing a valve assembly that does
not rotate. Jenni accomplishes this by providing guide ribs 9 on the duct 2
that cooperate with flat or level surfaces 17 (see Claim 1). To move these
engagement portions to be positioned on the non-flat portions would
clearly defeat the benefits provided by Jenni [reply brief at page 8].
We additionally note that it is an object of the Jenni invention to provide a check
valve where one can guarantee the touching of the closing body upon the seal portion
when the valve is in the closing position (page 3) and that it is the engagement of the
flat surfaces 17 with the guides 9 which prevent the twisting of the closing body. As
such, in our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to move
the linear engagement surfaces to non-flat portions of the valve, as taught by Shimoda,
as such would defeat the purpose of the Jenni invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007