Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668
sleeve) of nozzle needle 5 and the collar 17 on bush 16 operates to form a
pre-stressed nozzle spring 12. Hence, we find, like the Examiner, that
Boecking’s end-face 13 (i.e., sleeve) does pre-stress the nozzle spring 12.
Boecking discloses Appellant’s argued claim feature.
Regarding Appellant’s second argued distinction, “an adjusting body
placed in direct contact with the sleeve so as to be adjustable,” Boecking
discloses this claim feature. As the Examiner indicates, Boecking discloses
that bush 16 moves up and down in response to pressure changes to effect an
opening or closing of the nozzle needle 5 (Boecking, col. 5, ll. 2-9).
Moreover, Boecking shows that bush 16 is positioned within the end-face 13
(i.e., sleeve) of nozzle needle 5 (Boecking, Figures 1 and 2). Thus, Boecking
discloses Appellant’s second argued distinction.
Appellant’s argument that his sleeve 24 is fixed and adjusting body 40
moves within the sleeve 24, whereas Boecking’s “sleeve 16” (i.e., bush) is
moveable (Reply Br. 2), is directed to features of the sleeve and adjusting
body that are not claimed. Claim 26 does not recite that the sleeve is fixed
or that the adjusting body moves within the sleeve (claim 26). Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has
appropriately construed claim 26 in a broad and reasonable manner
consistent with the Specification. American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d
at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830. Based on this claim construction, the
Examiner has established that Boecking discloses Appellant’s argued
distinctions. We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of argued claim 26
and non-argued claim 27.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013