Appeal 2006-2292
Application 10/439,565
Appellant argues that neither Brown nor Kder discloses using a standard
fluid cylinder having an inlet of less than 1 inch NGT (Br. 10, 12).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons below.
Appellant does not dispute that all the claim features, with the
exception of “a standard fluid cylinder having a cylinder inlet of less than 1
inch National Gas Taper,” are disclosed by the combination of Wang in view
of Brown, or Wang in view Kder. Accordingly, the only issue presented in
this appeal is whether Appellant’s “standard fluid cylinder” claim feature in
combination with a regulator is rendered obvious by Wang in view of Brown
or Wang in view of Kder.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82
USPQ2d 1395, 1397 (2007). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is
likely the product not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Id. Economics may motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the
least expensive alternative. In re Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226, 1229, 188 USPQ
365, 367 (CCPA 1976).
As the Examiner stated in the Answer, Wang was faced with only two
choices when determining how to fit the regulator inside the fluid cylinder:
Wang could make the inlet to the cylinder larger or the regulator smaller
(Answer 4). Wang chose to make the inlet larger by custom manufacturing
fluid cylinders to accommodate the regulators, the more expensive option
(Wang, col. 17, ll. 14-26). However, the cost of manufacturing the fluid
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013