Appeal 2007-1465
Application 10/229,414
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Pittsley US 3,359,960 Dec. 26, 1967
McMullen US 3,766,898 Oct. 23, 1973
Otto US 4,625,703 Dec. 02, 1986
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7, 14
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Otto; claims 2-4 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Otto and claims 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Otto in view of McMullen or
Pittsley.1
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed January 26, 2007). Appellant presents opposing arguments
in the Appeal Brief (filed August 24, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed January
10, 2007).
OPINION
Claims 1, 7, 14 and 15
Appellant's claim 1 includes a limitation "a plurality of ribs extending
radially from one of said poppet valve and said housing . . . . , wherein one
of said poppet valve and said housing includes said plurality of ribs." Claim
15 further recites that "said plurality of ribs are a part of said poppet valve."
The first issue presented in this appeal is whether the fins 59 on part 58 of
1 In the Advisory Actions mailed November 22, 2004 and January 21, 2005,
the Examiner indicated the rejection of claims 5 and 6 had been overcome.
The Examiner apparently came to the realization that this was an error and
repeated the rejection in the Answer. In any event, Appellant responds to
this rejection in the Reply Brief and thus is not prejudiced by our treatment
of this rejection as being carried forward into the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013