Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
Examiner determines that Nohira meets all of the recited limitations with the
exception of the pressure sensor being positioned below the third row and
above the reservoir (Answer 6). Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s
determinations, alleging that Nohira is silent with respect to these features
(Appeal Br. 21-25). Accordingly, the first issue before us in deciding the
appeal of the rejection of claims 3, 6, and 11 is whether the Examiner erred
in determining which claimed features are met by Nohira.
Turning first to claim 3, Nohira’s Fig. 7 illustrates normally open
solenoid valves TC1 and TC2, which correspond to regulator solenoid
valves SC1 and SC2 in Fig. 9, each connected in parallel with a one-way
valve and a relief valve (not labelled in Fig. 7 but analogous to check valves
AV1 and AV2 and relief valves RV1 and RV2 of Fig. 4 – Nohira, col. 5, l.
21) between an output hydraulic passage from the master cylinder MC and a
hydraulic passage in a flow path with one of the reservoirs RS1 and RS2 via
at least one check valve. We thus conclude the Examiner correctly
determined Nohira meets all the limitations of claim 3 except that Nohira’s
one-way valve and relief valve are both disposed on the same side of the
normally open regulator solenoid valve SC1 or SC2, rather than on opposing
sides of the normally open solenoid valve as called for in claim 3.
As to claims 6 and 11, Nohira illustrates in Fig. 9 a pressure sensor
PS, but the pressure sensor PS is disposed above the regulators SC1 and
SC2, not below them as called for in claim 6 or below the third row (the row
with the suction valves SI1 and SI2 and regulator valves SC1 and SC2) as
called for in claim 11. While Nohira does not provide a perspective view for
the system of Fig. 9, such systems are structured with the valves and
pressure sensor protruding from the inner face of the housing, as illustrated
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013