Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
placement of the suction valves in close proximity to the pumps and, in
particular, in positions closer to the suction port 42 of each of the pumps
than the control valve units and regulators. As discussed above, the
Examiner correctly determined that Nohira’s suction valves SI1 and SI2 in
Fig. 9 are closer to the suction ports of the pumps than the regulators SC1
and SC2 and the control valve units PC1 through PC8 and, in so doing,
provided sufficient basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably
support the determination that the placement of Nohira’s suction valves SI1
and SI2 inherently improves suction efficiency of the pumps when the
pumps are operated with the suction valves, as called for in claims 9 and 12,
so as to shift the burden to Appellants to prove otherwise. Once the USPTO
establishes a prima facie case of anticipation based on inherency, the burden
shifts to appellant to prove that the prior art does not possess the
characteristic at issue. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have not come forth with any
evidence or explanation as to why the placement of Nohira’s suction valves
SI1 and SI2 would not improve suction efficiency and thus has not met that
burden. Appellants thus have failed to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9 and 12. The rejection is sustained.
We move now to the rejection of claims 3, 6, and 11 as unpatentable
over Nohira. With respect to claim 3, the Examiner determines that Nohira
meets all of the recited limitations with the exception of the relief valve and
one-way valve being on opposite sides of the normally open solenoid valve
(Answer 5-6). With respect to claim 6, the Examiner determines that Nohira
meets all of the recited limitations except the pressure sensor being on the
base below the regulators (Answer 6). With respect to claim 11, the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013