Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
(Nohira, col. 1, ll. 58-67.) Accordingly, the only difference between
the system of Figs. 7 and 8 and the system of Fig. 9 is in the diameters
of the electromagnetic valves. The relative positions of the
components are the same for the system of Fig. 9 as for the system of
Figs. 7 and 8. Nohira does not illustrate a perspective view of the
systems of Figs 7 and 8 and Fig. 9, but the consistency between the
spatial relationships shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 indicates that a
perspective view of the Fig. 9 system would convey spatial
relationships between the components consistent with that shown in
Fig. 9.
Based on the above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
determining that Nohira’s suction valves SI1 and SI2 are closer to the
suction ports of the pumps than are the regulators SC1 and SC2. While this
does not appear to be in dispute, we also conclude that the Examiner
properly found that Nohira’s regulators SC1 and SC2 are closer to the
suction ports of the pumps than are the control valve units PC1 through PC8.
Appellants thus have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 10. The rejection is sustained.
Turning next to the rejection of claim 4 as anticipated by Nohira, for
reasons stated below in our new rejection under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 entered under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no
reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain language appearing in
the claims. “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite
meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter
does not become obvious -- the claim becomes indefinite.” In re Wilson,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013