Appeal 2006-2292
Application 10/439,565
cylinders (i.e., the economics) with the larger inlets would have motivated
one of ordinary skill to find a more economical solution, such as making the
regulators smaller to fit into standard fluid cylinders. Clinton, 527 F.2d at
1229, 188 USPQ at 367.
Given the added expense involved with custom manufacturing the
fluid cylinders, there would have been market pressure to make the
combination of the regulator and the fluid cylinder more economically. In
view of the market pressure coupled with the finite number of predictable
solutions (i.e, making the inlet larger or the regulator smaller), one of
ordinary skill would have had good reasons to pursue the option of making
the regulator smaller to fit in a standard fluid cylinder (i.e., one having a
inlet of less than 1 inch NGT). KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
From the above discussion, Wang’s disclosure, to use a custom made
fluid cylinder with an inlet of greater than 1 inch NGT, does not teach away
from using a standard fluid cylinder as Appellant argues. Rather, this
disclosure would have provided motivation to explore the only other option
(i.e., making the regulator smaller) to find a more economical way to
combine the regulator with the fluid cylinder. Clinton, 527 F.2d at 1229,
188 USPQ at 367. Moreover, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s argument that Wang’s silence regarding making the regulator
smaller fails to suggest the combination of a standard fluid cylinder with a
regulator.
Appellant’s argument that Brown and Kder fail to disclose using a
standard cylinder having an opening less than 1 inch NGT is not persuasive
in view of our above discussion. Furthermore, as the Examiner states, the
slender regulators of Brown and Kder would have suggested using a fluid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013