Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
elastomeric seal and gap between the gate sealing face and the seat sealing
face” (Br. 7).
The Examiner responds that “when . . . [Horie’s] gate valve 64 [i.e.,
valve element] is closed on the O-ring seal 62 [i.e., valve sheet] it leaves a
continuous gap around the seal where the seal contacts the purge gas before
the purge gas exits 29” (Answer 5-6).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection over Horie.
Horie discloses that valve element 64 is spaced from valve sheet 62
and purge gas is supplied through valve opening (i.e., the hole formed in
valve sheet 62) via valve 48a to clean valve element 64 and valve sheet 62
(Horie, ¶¶ [0022] and [0023], Figure 2). Hence, it is Horie’s valve opening
that conveys the purge gas, not an “outlet extending around the outside of
the vacuum valve opening.” From such disclosure, Horie does not disclose
“an essentially continuous outlet extending around the outside of the vacuum
valve opening” as recited in claim 1.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros.v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 2.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION OVER SCHNEIDER
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2 and 12 under § 102(b) over
Schneider. The Examiner stated that Schneider disclosed among other claim
features, “a purge gas port system in the seat having an inlet and outlet (Fig.
2-39 and Fig. 11b-218)” (Answer 5).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013