Appeal 2007-0605
Application 10/231,771
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Compton 2,700,397 Jan. 25, 1955
4
5 Daubenberger 3,343,217 Sep. 26, 1967
6
7 Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
8 been obvious. More specifically, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, and
9 20, Appellant contends (Br. 8) that there is no teaching or suggestion in
10 Daubenberger that "a pressure force within chamber 38 will act directly on
11 the tapered pin 40 to effectuate the fluid passing through the central opening
12 under normal operation." Appellant further contends (id.) that in
13 Daubenberger, whether the system pressure is increasing or decreasing, the
14 system relies upon the pressure in the third chamber to regulate the system
15 pressure. Appellant further contends (Br. 9) that Daubenberger teaches
16 away from the present invention because tapered pin 40 provides a variable
17 orifice, depending on the position of the pin, and (Br. 9-10) that in
18 Daubenberger, pressure relief valve 27 will allow fluid to pass from pump
19 24 directly through line 28 back to reservoir 25, if the system pressure
20 exceeded a threshold. Appellant adds that in Daubenberger, if the system
21 pressure were relieved by pressure acting on tapered pin 40 alone, there
22 would be no reason for the pressure relief valve 27.
23 With respect to the rejection of claims 4, 17, and 19, Appellant
24 contends (Br. 12-13) that Compton fails to provide the elements missing
25 from Daubenberger and that Compton fails to suggest any motivation for the
26 modification of the operation of Daubenberger, as espoused by the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013