Appeal No. 2006-2154 Page 3
Application No. 10/786,998
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, the subject matter of the invention of claims
1-3 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made over Berchem ‘427 in view of Berchem ‘004.
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner determined that
Berchem ‘427 discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention except that the
assembly of Berchem ‘427 lacks the shut off element being a slide plate and the
valve seat being two sealing discs. The examiner relies on Berchem ‘004 to show
that a ball valve (as disclosed in Berchem ‘427) is equivalent to a disc slide valve.
The examiner found that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ball valve and valve seat
of Berchem ‘427 as a slide plate with two sealing discs as disclosed by Berchem
‘004, because Berchem ‘004 shows that they are equivalent. (Final Office Action,
p. 2)
The appellant contends that a ball valve and valve seat structure is not
equivalent to a structure using a slide plate with two sealing discs. The appellant
contends that there is no teaching or suggestion in either of the cited references that
the materials used for a ball valve can be successfully imparted to a disc slide.
(Brief, pp. 3-4 and Reply Brief, pp. 1-2)
To determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we are guided by the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007