Ex parte Arnold: The Examiner essentially ignores Appellants’ seemingly well reasoned arguments

from Ex parte Arnold

Of background:

The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 41 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker (US 6,123,061, issued Sep. 26,
2000) in view of Fisher (US 4,743,161, issued May 10, 1988). The
Examiner withdrew, on appeal, a rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 25 and
28 on these same grounds. Ans. 3.2

and

The Examiner essentially ignores Appellants’ seemingly wellreasoned
arguments, and responds that placing the bypass port of Baker in a
position between the inducer and exducer “would be advantageous to the
Baker device since Baker has recognized the problem related to a large
negative pressure within the flow path (18) and crankcase in the event of
high compressor speed and the resultant high negative pressure (see column
5, lines 1-3).” Ans. 6. The Examiner fails to recognize that Baker there is
addressing low crankcase pressures, and addresses that problem by inclusion
of a vacuum limiting valve, which, as noted by Appellants, operates to suck
atmospheric air into the system to maintain the crankcase vacuum level at an
acceptable level. Reply Br. 6; Baker, col. 5, l. 62-col. 6, l. 3. The
Examiner’s reasoning is not supported by rational underpinnings.