Appeal No. 2006-1430
Application No. 10/005,484
Appellants purport to argue each of the independent claims 23, 24,
and 45 separately (Br. 5), but Appellants’ argument is the same with respect
to each of the independent claims. Specifically, Appellants argue that
Evans’ valve is not “constructed and arranged to provide all metering
positions from a fully closed position to a fully open position” as required in
each of the independent claims (Br. 6-8). Accordingly, the sole issue
involved in the appeal of the anticipation rejection is whether Evans meets
this limitation.
Evans’ valve 56, like Appellants’ valve, is used in a system for
introducing particulate materials into high pressure air streams to, for
example, sandblast surfaces (col. 1, ll. 7-15). See Evans’ Fig. 1. Evans’
valve 56 is also constructed very much like Appellants’ valve. Specifically,
Evans’ valve includes a body 88 having a particulate material receiving
opening 90 in fluid communication with a particle entrainment gas flow tube
92, a sleeve 97 positioned in the body, a media opening 97a in the sleeve,
and a metering piston 94. Metering piston 94 is movably positioned within
the body and rigidly attached to a drive piston 100 having a lower surface
106 in fluid communication with air pressure, depicted by flow arrow 113,
from an air pressure source (col. 10, ll. 6-9). According to Evans, the high
pressure air 113 has a pressure sufficient to “quickly force” drive piston 100
up to the top 109 of the drive piston chamber 101 (col. 10, ll. 18-23) and,
hence, the metering piston 94 away from gas flow tube 92 to open the valve
56. The drive piston 100 and metering piston 94 are quickly moved back
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013