Appeal 2007-1465
Application 10/229,414
claims 5 and 6. Moreover, to provide the first set of fins 59A or ribs on the
housing 22A extending inwardly from the internal peripheral surface of the
outlet passage thereof, instead of on reduced portion 62A of valve member
30A, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claims 2-4 and 16. Accordingly, the
Examiner correctly concluded that the subject matter of claims 5 and 6 is not
patentable over Otto, even without the additional teachings of McMullen and
Pittsley.
Moreover, Appellant's argument that the modification proposed by the
Examiner would not have been obvious because the fins of means 57 would
interfere with and contact the ribs on the housing 39 as poppet 30 moves,
disrupting operation of poppet 30 (Reply Br. 3-4), is unsound. The
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to provide a second set of
ribs, as defined in Appellant's claims 5 and 6, on the second portion of Otto's
poppet 30 in view of the teaching of such poppet inlet end structure by
McMullen (McMullen 3:16-24; Fig. 2, head portion 74) and Pittsley
(Pittsley 4:67-72; Fig. 2, head 76) to provide greater stability to the poppet
valve while still allowing flow through the valve (Answer 5). In the
modification proposed by the Examiner, the first plurality of ribs (fins 59)
are disposed on internal peripheral surface 46 and the second plurality of
ribs are disposed on the second or opposite portion of poppet 30, presumably
in the region of annular flange 37 of poppet body 31. The second portion of
poppet 30 will not travel within the outlet passage 45 so as to engage ribs or
fins extending radially inwardly from the internal peripheral surface 46.
Therefore, the two sets of fins or ribs cannot interfere with one another. The
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013