Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
Schneider US 6,056,267 May 2, 2000
Gochberg US 6,602,346 Aug. 5, 2003
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 9, and 12 are rejected “under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-8 of U. S. Patent No.
6602346 [to Gochberg] since the claims, if allowed, would improperly
extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.”
2. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Horie.
3. Claims 1-3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Senba.
4. Claims 1, 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Schneider.
Appellants separately argue claims 1, 2, 3, 9, and 12. Accordingly,
we address Appellants’ arguments regarding those claims in our opinion
below.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION OVER SENBA
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 9, and 12 under § 102(b) over
Senba. The Examiner found that Senba discloses Appellants’ claimed
invention, including “a purge gas port system in the gate (10a or 11)
[Senba’s Figure 5 embodiment] or in the seat having an inlet (10) [and] an
outlet (10) [Senba’s Figure 3 embodiment]” (Answer 5).
Appellants’ only argued distinction is that Senba fails to disclose
“‘inner and outer walls outward of the vacuum valve opening’ which form
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013