Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
base in positions closer to the suction port[1] of the
pumps than the control valve units.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fujita US 5,449,226 Sep. 12, 1995
Nohira US 6,234,199 B1 May 22, 2001
Brachert US 6,318,818 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5,
9, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Nohira and
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3, 6, and 11 as unpatentable
over Nohira, claim 2 as unpatentable over Nohira in view of Brachert, and
claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Nohira in view of Fujita.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed September 18, 2006). Appellants present opposing
arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed July 10, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
November 20, 2006). Appellants’ counsel presented oral argument in the
appeal on June 5, 2007.
OPINION
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and
12 as anticipated by Nohira. The first issue presented to us is whether, in the
embodiment of Fig. 9, Nohira’s suction valves (SI1 and SI2) are disposed in
positions closer to the suction ports of the pumps than the control valve units
(PC1 through PC8) and the regulators (valves SC1 and SC2), as required in
independent claims 1 and 10. The Examiner determines that the suction
valves, regulators, and control valve units read on valves SI1 and SI2, valves
1 It appears that “port” should be “ports.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013