Appeal 2007-0605
Application 10/231,771
1 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “In considering motivation in the
2 obviousness analysis, the problem examined is not the specific problem
3 solved by the invention but the general problem that confronted the inventor
4 before the invention was made. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1336
5 (citations omitted).
6 ANALYSIS
7 We begin with the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, and 20 under
8 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daubenberger in view of
9 known air compressor systems. We note at the outset that Appellant has
10 argued these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
11 representative of the group. From Facts 7 and 10-12 we find a description of
12 the size of the opening 37 increasing and decreasing depending upon
13 movement of tapered pin 40. It is not clear from Daubenberger whether
14 opening 37 actually forms a seal with tapered pin 40, or whether the size of
15 the opening simply increases or decreases without a seal occurring.
16 In addition, claim 1 requires that the governor monitors air pressure in
17 the system. The control line 30 allows system pressure to pass through to
18 third chamber 43. We find no description of control line 30 monitoring
19 anything. Claim 1 additionally requires a vent that allows air to escape from
20 the system. From fact 8, we find that line 29 of Daubenberger is a return
21 line to reservoir 25. Since the system of Daubenberger is a closed system,
22 fluid in line 29 does not meet the claim language of allowing of air to escape
23 from the system.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013