Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). In comparing the
claimed subject matter with the applied prior art, it is apparent to us that
considerable speculations and assumptions are necessary in order to
determine what in fact is being claimed. Since a rejection based on prior art
cannot be based on speculations and assumptions (see In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962)), we are constrained to reverse,
pro forma, the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Nohira. We hasten to add that this is a procedural reversal
rather than one based upon the merits of the anticipation rejection.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 5 as anticipated by Nohira.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to identify any disclosure in
Nohira that the regulators SC1 and SC2 of Fig. 9 are normally open solenoid
valves incorporating one-way valves and relief valves alone or in
combination with the regulators being on the same side of the base as the
suction valves with respect to the control valve units (Appeal Br. 17).
According to Appellants, the language of Nohira discussing Fig. 9 is silent
with regard to these features (Appeal Br. 17-18). Appellants’ argument is
not well taken.
As discussed above, the only difference between Nohira’s Fig. 9
hydraulic system and that of Figs. 7 and 8 is the diameter of the
electromechanical solenoid valves (Nohira, col. 1, ll. 29-67). The schematic
block diagram of Fig. 7 applies to Fig. 9 as well, with the exception that, in
the Fig. 9 system, larger diameter valves SC1, SC2, SI1, and SI2 replace the
valves TC1, TC2, TI1, and TI2 illustrated in Fig. 7.
Nohira’s Fig. 7 illustrates regulators TC1 and TC2, which correspond
to regulators SC1 and SC2 in Fig. 9, including normally open solenoid
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013