Appeal 2007-1465
Application 10/229,414
internal peripheral surface 46, rather than as part of poppet 30 extending
radially outwardly from stem portion 53, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would provide the fins with sufficient length in the axial direction to
accommodate the entire extent of travel of reduced cylindrical part 62
throughout all positions of poppet 30. Such an arrangement would
completely avoid the problem alluded to by Appellant.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant's argument fails to
demonstrate the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-4 and 16 as
unpatentable over Otto. The rejection is sustained.
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5, which depends from claim 4, and claim 6, which depends
from claim 5, are directed to the configuration of the second poppet portion
30, that is, the portion of the poppet valve 18 opposite the first poppet
portion 28 that includes the first set of ribs. As best seen in Appellant's
Figures 6 and 7, this configuration includes "a head with corners 36 defining
a second set of ribs" (Specification [22]).
The Examiner concedes that Otto's poppet 30 does not disclose such a
second plurality of ribs on its second portion (Answer 4). While this may be
true, the valve member (poppet) 30A of Otto's embodiment of Figures 7-11
does have such a configuration at its second end, in the form of a
substantially square flange 37A with the corners 75 thereof being rounded
(Otto 7:4-11; Fig. 11). This embodiment also includes a finned part 58A,
with fins 59A, on reduced portion 62A of valve member (poppet) 30A (Otto
7:18-20; Figs. 7, 8). Thus, akin to Appellant's "head with corners 36
defining a second set of ribs," Otto does teach including on the valve
member 30A a second plurality of ribs on its second portion, as called for in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013