Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Boecking1 WO 01/11220 A1 Feb. 15, 2001 (Aug. 1, 2000)
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Boecking.2
Appellant separately argues independent claim 26 and dependent claims
28 and 29. Accordingly, dependent claim 27 stands or falls with claim 26.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102 REJECTION OVER BOECKING
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 26
The Examiner’s construction of claim 26 includes, in relevant part, the
following: (1) the claim 26 phrase “sleeve to pre-stress the restoring spring”
corresponds to Boecking’s part indicated by reference numeral 13 that abuts
the nozzle spring 12 (Answer 3), and (2) the claim 26 phrase “an adjusting
body placed in direct contact with the sleeve so as to be adjustable”
1 The Examiner relies on the equivalent US Patent 6,626,371 B1 for an
English language translation of the German language WIPO document (WO
01/11220 A1). Appellant does not dispute the use of US Patent 6,626,371
B1 as an English language equivalent of the German language WIPO
document. We refer to the US Patent 6,626,371 B1 in our opinion below.
2 Appellant has not contested the availability of WO 01/11220 A1 under §
102(e) as asserted by the Examiner, and WO 01/11220 A1 is clearly
available as prior art under § 102(a). Accordingly, any error on the part of
the Examiner, regarding which section of 35 U.S.C. § 102 is applicable, is
harmless.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013