Appeal 2007-2452
Application 10/421,761
1 The Appellants argue that there is no indication that the Bircann ‘519 spring
2 is between a plunger and a bearing (Br. 13). The Bircann ‘519 spring is between
3 an armature (146) and a bearing (98) (fig. 2) which are comparable, respectively,
4 to the Appellants’ plunger and bearing.
5 The Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion that the
6 Bircann ‘519 tapered portion 160 is between a spring and a plunger for preventing
7 a load of a spring from being applied to the plunger (Br. 14; Reply Br. 9). The
8 Bircann ‘519 valve stem (92) has affixed thereto a curved piece which the upper
9 end of the spring presses against (fig. 8). That curved piece prevents a load of the
10 spring from being applied to the armature (which corresponds to the Appellants’
11 plunger) and, therefore, corresponds to the holder recited in the Appellants’ claim
12 3.
13 Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 2
14 and 3.
15 DECISION
16 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-9 over Ichiryu
17 in view of Bircann ‘875 and Modien, claims 2 and 3 over Ichiryu in view of
18 Bircann ‘875, Modien and Bircann ‘519, and claim 6 over Ichiryu in view of
19 Bircann ‘875, Modien and Bircann ‘226 are affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013