Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
his diaphragm 32 from his decoupler 38 such that the Examiner’s likening of
Hein’s decoupler 38 with Appellants’ diaphragm 60 is improper “on its
face” (Br. 10). Appellants contend that the “structures compared by the
Examiner (i.e., Hein’s decoupler 38 with Appellants’ diaphragm 60) are not
similar and perform different functions” (Br. 10).
Appellants further contend that the Examiner appears to be arguing
that the spacing apart of the central node of the diaphragm is equivalent to
spacing apart of the periphery (Br. 10). However, Appellants state that their
invention cannot work as intended with the central node spaced apart from
the orifice plates (Br. 10). Appellants conclude that “[a]ny modification that
would render the instant claims unworkable cannot be an obvious
modification” (Br. 10).
Appellants further argue that the references teach away from the
proposed combination of Yamamoto with Hein (Br. 11). Appellants contend
that any combination of Yamamoto and Hein would require “substantial
reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown as well as a change in the
basic principle under which the construction of the references is designed to
operate, and is not a proper ground for a [§] 103(a) rejection” (Br. 11).
Regarding whether Yamamoto teaches away from the claimed
invention, Appellants explain that Yamamoto “features a diaphragm portion
34 that assumes a generally inverted U-form and ‘has a curved configuration
that nearly corresponds to the radius or curvature part 11a bulging out
toward the inner peripheral surface of the annular wall section 14 of the
orifice member . . .’” (Br. 11). Appellants contend that “[s]haping the
periphery of the diaphragm portion to closely match the curves of an orifice
plate directly contrasts with shaping the diaphragm to be spaced apart from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007