Appeal No. 2006-0523 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/282,658
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim
21 or claims 22 to 26 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 27 to 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatenable over Silberstein in view of Jenni.
The examiner is of the opinion that Silberstein discloses the invention of claim 27
except that Silberstein does not disclose a polygonal check valve. The examiner relies
on Jenni for describing a polygonal check valve. The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to have provided the shock absorber of Silberstien [sic] with
the check valve of Jenni in order to improve the flow characteristics of the
valve [Office Action dated December 30, 2004, page 5].
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of
Silberstein and Jenni to arrive at the subject matter of claim 27. Specifically, appellants
argue:
. . . there is no support for the examiner's assertion that the Jenni valve
has improved flow characteristics over Silberstein. Silberstein does not
allude to any problems relating to fluid flow, and further, Jenni does not
disclose that a polygonal check valve is a solution for improving fluid flow
characteristics. In fact the polygonal surfaces in Jenni, i.e. the three flat
surfaces 17, have nothing to do with flow and instead prevent rotation of
the valve. There is absolutely no evidence in any of the references or
prior art to support the examiner's assertion that modifying Silberstein to
include the check valve of Jenni would improve Silberstein's flow
characteristics [brief at page 17].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007