Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
portion of valve plate 6 retaining sealing members 8). Hence, the features of
claims 3 and 9 are disclosed by Senba.
Regarding Appellants’ Figure 8 embodiment having the gas purge
port system in the seat, Senba discloses at least two gas ports 10 (i.e.,
“essentially continuous”) that are placed along but outside the perimeter of
the opening 2 (i.e, valve opening) (i.e., “extending around”) (Senba, Figure
3). Moreover, Senba discloses that the gas ports 10 are formed between an
inner wall (i.e., the portion of the valve seat 7 forming opening 2) and outer
wall (i.e., the portion of valve seat 7 engaging with sealing members 8).
Hence, the features of claims 2 and 12 are disclosed by Senba.
Appellants’ claim 1 is does not specify whether the gas purge port
system is placed in the gate or seat; it is generic regarding the purge gas port
system placement. Because it is generic regarding the gas purge port system
placement, either Senba’s Figure 5 or Figure 3 embodiment would satisfy
Appellants’ claim 1.
From the foregoing, Senba anticipates Appellants’ claims 1-3, 9, and
12. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3,
9, and 12 over Senba.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION OVER HORIE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 under § 102(b) over Horie. The
Examiner stated that Horie discloses “. . . a purge gas port system having an
inlet (Fig. 3-50(a)) [,] an outlet (Fig. 3-29) [and] a manifold to distribute the
inert gas at the seal and the gap” (Answer 4).
Appellants argue that “Horie does not show a purge gas outlet
extending around, i.e., outside, the vacuum valve opening and adjacent the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013