Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 17
Application No. 09/258,712
one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (and cases cited therein).
In our view, Ganser's teaching (column 10, lines 20-21) that needle valve 212
has a second guide 216 (which is in addition to the needle valve piston 206 of the
needle valve 212) provides sufficient motivation for one skilled in the art to have added
a second guide on the needle valve of either Moncelle or Anderson for the self-evident
advantages thereof (e.g., additional guiding of the needle valve in the bore of the lower
tip component (i.e., Moncelle's bore 32 in tip 18; Anderson's bore in tip 154). In our
view, Ganser's teaching of a second guide 216 on needle valve 212 provides an implicit
suggestion to one with ordinary skill in the art that a needle valve with two guides
provides more accurate movement of the needle valve than a single guide (i.e., the
needle valve piston 206 of the needle valve 212). While the appellants are correct that
there is no "support" (express statement) in the record that the needle valves of
Moncelle and Anderson need to be guided in a more accurate manner, it is our
determination that the combined teachings of the applied prior art (Moncelle combined
with Ganser or Anderson combined with Ganser) would have made it obvious at the
time the invention was made for one skilled in the art to have added a second guide on
the needle valve of either Moncelle or Anderson.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007