Appeal No. 1998-1503
Application No. 08/676,907
logical nor plausible, given the different purposes and
operation of a solenoid valve vs. a solenoid pump.”
The examiner’s response is merely to state that the type
of inductive load is “immaterial” and that it would have been
obvious to substitute a reciprocating pump for the inductive
load, 1, of Suquet. While there may be some reason, of which
we are unaware, for substituting a reciprocal pump for the
inductive load of Suquet, the examiner’s rationale that it
would have been obvious to substitute a reciprocal pump for
the inductive load of Suquet merely because reciprocal pumps
were known is not sufficient in view of appellant’s argument
that the examiner’s substitution is illogical in view of the
different purposes and operation of a solenoid valve and a
reciprocating pump. The examiner has not sufficiently
responded to appellant’s apparently reasonable argument. As
such, weighing the evidence before us on this record, we are
constrained to find for appellant. That evidence indicates a
strong argument by appellant as to why reciprocating pumps are
different than solenoid valves and that it would not have been
obvious to substitute one for the other, versus the examiner’s
unsupported contention that it would have been obvious to
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007