Appeal 2007-0605
Application 10/231,771
1 Moreover, we find no description in Daubenberger of pressure
2 buildup in the system due to a governor failure causing the pressure on
3 chamber 38 to cause tapered pin 40 to move backward against the bias of the
4 spring 42. Rather, we find that due to the small size of the taper, and the
5 presence of pressure relief valve 27 (fact 8), if the pressure built up in
6 chamber 38 due to a clog or pinching of control line 30, pressure relief valve
7 27 would open and release the pressure in the system. Accordingly, we find
8 that even if we modified valve 22 of Daubenberger to operate in an air
9 compressor environment, as advanced by the Examiner, the resultant
10 structure would fall short of the invention set forth in claim 1. It follows that
11 we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In
12 addition, because independent claims 10, 11, and 18-20 contain similar
13 limitations, we cannot sustain the rejection of these claims, or of dependent
14 claims 2, 3, 5-9, and 12-16.
15 We turn next to the rejection of claims 4, 17, and 19 under
16 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daubenberger in view of
17 known air compressor systems and Compton. We reverse the rejection of
18 these claims because Compton fails to make up for the basic deficiencies of
19 Daubenberger and known air compressors.
20
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013