Appeal No. 2006-1447 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/775,881
be interpreted as comprising 96,98,78,106,114, which further comprises the
membrane 78, as broadly claimed. Fluid is therefore capable of flowing between
the "first" and "second" chambers through the hole 106 defined by membrane
78,” since appellants membrane also allows some fluid flow even when it is
closed.
We agree with appellants’(brief, page 8) that in figure 3 of Vermolen, aperture
106 is aligned with aperture 98, allowing fluid to flow into chambers 112 and 110, but
that there is nothing in Vermolen which defines aperture 106 as being open to anything
but aperture 98. We add that, as shown in figure 3 of Vermolen, fluid can flow through
aperture 106 into chambers 112 and 110. However, the fluid would not be flowing
through aperture 98 to chamber 102 and aperture 94 through aperture 106 because it is
flowing through aperture 106 into chamber 112 and not into chamber 102.
We additionally agree with appellants (brief, page 8) that
“[t]he area between disc 78 and seat 96 is defined as restriction 108 which is the
equivalent of the fluid passage in the present invention.” However, we do not agree
with appellants’ subsequent statement that “when disc 78 closes restriction 108 fluid
flow is prevented between disc 78 and seat 96 since restriction 108 is closed” because
we find no convincing evidence in Vermolen, and no passage of Vermolen has been
pointed to by appellants, that would describe restriction 108 as being closed.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (reply brief, page 3) that “[i]f we
accept the Examiner’s position that membrane 78 defines aperture 108, then aperture
108 does not allow fluid flow when membrane 78 closes the passage since aperture
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007