Appeal No. 2006-1447 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/775,881
restriction 108 to be closed. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion
(brief, page 8) that Vermolen “does not disclose, teach or even suggest this bleed flow
of hydraulic fluid.” In addition, as we noted, supra, claim 1 does not recite that the
aperture extends through the membrane. From the disclosure of Vermolen (col. 5,
lines 21-24) that shim disc 78 and annular projection 96 “defines a restriction 108" we
find that shim disc 78 (membrane) defines the aperture (restriction 108) as recited in
claim 1. We are cognizant of the differences between appellants’ disclosed invention
and the earlier patent to Vermolen. However, these differences, such as the aperture
extending through the membrane, are not found in claim 1 as broadly drafted.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page 7) that “the Examiner
has failed to disclose where in Vermolen, et al. the membrane defines an aperture to
allow a specified amount of fluid flow between the two chambers when the membrane is
in its second position where the fluid passage between the two chambers is closed." In
Vermolen, changes in the size of the restriction, due to the air pressure supplied by air
tube 120, causes movement of shim disc 78 to the left or right to increase or decrease
the size of restriction 108. However, whether the shim disc is moved to the left or right,
fluid flow continues between 92 and 94 irrespective of the size of the restriction.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner (answer, page 6) that:
even with consideration given to appellant's argument
that with the membrane 78 in the "closed position," or firmly seated against
element 96, that fluid cannot pass through 108 the first chamber of Vermolen et
al. can be interpreted as 36, the second chamber at 112 or 110, the "valve" can
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007