Appeal No. 2006-1430
Application No. 10/005,484
adjustment in Shank’s valve. The motivation to do so would have been to
control the extent of opening of the valve to meter the flow of media.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claims 24,
25, 29, 31-38, 42, 44-47, 56, 58, and 59 as being unpatentable over Shank in
view of Schmidt or Evans.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 30, 51, 52, 55, and 57 as being
unpatentable over Shank in view of Schmidt or Evans and further in view of
Bey as Appellants have not challenged this rejection with any reasonable
specificity apart from the rejection based on Shank in view of Schmidt or
Evans (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23-25, 29-38, 42, 44-47
and 50-59 is AFFIRMED. The Examiner should clarify the status of claim
43 upon return of the application to the Technology Center.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). See 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013