Appeal No. 2006-0523 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/282,658
In response, the examiner asserts that there would also be motivation for
modifying the Silberstein valve so as to have a polygonal shape as taught by Jenni, i.e.,
to improve the sealing characteristics of the Silberstein valve.
The appellants respond that Silberstien does not allude to any problems
associated with positioning a valve against a seal.
We agree with the appellants. In our view the only reason for modifying the
shock absorber of Silberstein so as to have the check valve described in Jenni is the
hindsight reconstruction of the prior art using appellants invention as a template.
Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
We will likewise not sustain the rejection of claims 30 to 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Silberstein in view of Jenni and Shimoda as this rejection
relies on the combination of Silberstein and Jenni.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007