Appeal 2007-0605
Application 10/231,771
1 Examiner. The Examiner contends (Answer 3) that partition 362 of
2 Daubenberger meets the claimed vent port and that tapered pin 40 is biased
3 by a spring 42 to form a seal between the discharge port and the vent. The
4 Examiner additionally contends that control line 30 of Daubenberger is a
5 governor that monitors pressure in the system, and that if control line 30
6 became blocked or pinched off, pressure at a higher level in valve chamber
7 38 would move the valve body (tapered pin 40) against spring 42 to allow
8 fluid to escape from the system through vent 29 (Answer 3-4). In addition,
9 the Examiner takes Official Notice (Answer 6) that "air compressor systems
10 including a discharge bypass to the inlet, responsive to outlet pressure for the
11 purpose of limiting the discharge pressure are widely known and notoriously
12 old in the art." The Examiner is of the opinion (Answer 6-7) that it would
13 have been obvious to employ the valve element of figure 2 of Daubenberger
14 in an air compressor system for the purpose of controlling and limiting the
15 air pressure supplied in the air compressor system.
16 We reverse.
17
18 ISSUE
19 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in holding that
20 Daubenberger and known compressors suggest the language of claim 1?
21 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in holding that Compton
22 makes up for the deficiencies of Daubenberger with respect to claims 4, 17,
23 and 19?
2 We presume the Examiner intended central opening 37 as responding to
the vent port.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013