Appeal No. 2006-1447 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/775,881
disc 78 closes fluid passage or restriction 108, fluid flow is prohibited from flowing
through restriction 108 because of the closing of restriction 108 by shim disc 78.
Appellants note (id.) that as shown in figure 3, aperture 106 is aligned with aperture 98
and, thus, fluid can flow through aperture 106 into chamber 112 and even into chamber
110, but that there is nothing in Vermolen which defines aperture 106 as being open to
anything but aperture 98 as illustrated in figure 3. As shown in figure 3, aperture 106 is
clearly not in communication with annular chamber 102.
With respect to the examiner’s assertion in the advisory action that chambers 40
and 42 can communicate through channels 92, 94 through channel 98, appellants argue
that the examiner has failed to include the fact that this flow must occur when channel
98 is closed by shim disc 78. Appellants acknowledge (id.) that the area between disc
78 and seat 96 is defined as restriction 108, which is the equivalent of the fluid passage
of the present invention. However, appellants argue (brief, pages 8 and 9) that when
disc 78 closes restriction 108, fluid flow is prevented between disc 78 and seat 96 since
restriction 108 is closed, and (brief, page 9) that “[t]hus, the only way for fluid to flow
from aperture 98 to annular chamber 102 would be if aperture 106 was in
communication with both aperture 98 and annular chamber 102.” Appellants add (id.)
that “[s]pecifically, Vermolen, et al. fails to disclose, teach or suggest an aperture to
allow a specified amount of fluid flow between the first chamber and the second
chamber when the membrane closes the fluid passage.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007