Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121
of a nozzle seal (prior art figure 3). Thus, Yamazaki’s disclosure of a shutter at least
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a nozzle seal.
The appellant argues that at column 7, lines 26-46, Hashimoto requires a specific
amount of air to be drawn into the filler tube during refueling to create negative pressure
without causing premature nozzle shutoff (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 2). The
portion of Hashimoto relied upon by the appellant discloses controlling the inhalation of
outside air (col. 7, lines 31-32). Hashimoto teaches that it is desirable that the air drawn
in “may become a little greater than zero” (col. 9, lines 48-49). Hashimoto does not
indicate that an amount of air that is a little greater than zero would exceed the amount
drawn in through a nozzle seal. We note that the appellant acknowledges that air can
leak past his seal (specification, page 9, ¶ 0032).
For the above reasons, we are not convinced of reversible error in the examiner’s
rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yamazaki in view of
Aubel and Hashimoto is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007