Appeal No. 2006-2154 Page 4
Application No. 10/786,998
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art.1
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, we agree with the
examiner that Berchem ‘427 discloses a valve seat (8) and shut-off element (2)
made from quartz glass (Final Office Action, p. 2 citing Berchem ‘427, col. 2, lines
5-6 and col. 4, lines 61-63). Specifically, we find that Berchem ‘427 teaches that
valves, such as flap-type valves, gate valves, slide valves, and rotatable cocks,
which act as throttles, are commonly used in flow passages to control pressure or
volume flow rate of the flowable medium (Berchem ‘427, col. 1, lines 32-46).
Berchem ‘427 also teaches that it was known in the art to provide the flow passage
of an assembly with an engineered ceramic to reduce abrasive wear caused by the
composition and hardness of finely divided solids in a flowable medium and the
velocity of the flowable medium (Berchem ‘427, col. 1, lines 58-66). Berchem
‘427 teaches that silicon dioxide is one such engineering ceramic that was
commonly used in flow passages (Berchem ‘427, col. 2, lines 1-7). In the specific
embodiment of the invention described in Berchem ‘427, throttles (1) is a rotatable
cock valve having valve seats (8) and a valve member (2) that can be composed of
an engineering ceramic, such as silicon dioxide (Berchem ‘427, col. 4, lines 61-
63).
We find that Berchem ‘004 also relates to shutoff and control valves
(Berchem ’004, col. 1, lines 27-28). Berchem ‘004 similarly discloses that it was
known in the art to make a valve element and valve seat of an engineering ceramic
1 Although Graham also suggests analysis of secondary considerations such as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., the appellant presented no such
evidence of secondary considerations for the Board’s consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007