Appeal No. 2003-1554 Page 4
Application No. 09/552,063
the inlet side of the valve. The examiner concedes on page 3 of the answer that
Hamel, the primary reference relied upon in rejecting the claims, lacks this feature. As
illustrated schematically in Figure 7, Hamel’s accumulator is connected to both the
discharge side of the pump and the inlet side of the valve. Rather than showing a single
inlet/outlet port, however, Hamel’s Figure 7 appears to show an inlet of the accumulator
connected to the discharge side of the pump and a separate outlet connected to the
inlet side of the valve.
To overcome this deficiency, the examiner points to the teaching in Anderson
(note Figure 5) of a hydraulic power unit comprising an accumulator 531 having a single
inlet/outlet line 533 fluidly connected to the discharge side of a pump 525 and the inlet
side of a solenoid valve 515. It appears to be the examiner’s position that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the accumulator of Hamel, with
its separate inlet and outlet ports, with an accumulator as taught by Anderson, with a
single inlet/outlet port connected to the discharge side of the pump and to the inlet side
of the valve. According to the examiner, “[t]he motivation is the known use of
equivalents” (answer, page 4).
As pointed out by appellant on page 6 of the brief, the mere fact that the prior art
could be modified as proposed by the examiner would not have made the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. See In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007