Appeal No. 2006-1447 Παγε 12
Application No. 10/775,881
108 is closed when the fluid passage is closed” because, as we found, supra,
membrane (shim disc) 78 does not close aperture (restriction) 108 when the fluid
passage is closed, but rather, air from tube 120 causes shim disc 78 to move resulting
in increase or decrease in the size of the restriction 108 (col. 7, lines 8-26).
From all of the above, we hold that the disclosure of Vermolen is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1, and we are not convinced of any
error
on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Vermolen is sustained. As dependent claims 2, 3 5 and 6 have not been separately
argued by appellants, the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
sustained.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vermolen in view of Molina. The examiner’s
rejection can be found on pages 4 and 5 of the answer. In the rejection, the examiner
relies upon Molina for a teaching of having plural discs as the membrane. Appellants
provide no arguments regarding this rejection.
From our review of the record, and in particular, from Molina’s disclosure of
flexible discs 136 (figure 4), we agree with the examiner that the combined teachings of
Vermolen and Molina would have suggested to an artisan the invention of claim 4, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007