Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
in Fig. 3. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
Nohira’s pressure sensor PS to be protruding from one face of the housing.
We thus conclude the Examiner correctly determined Nohira meets all the
limitations of claims 6 and 11, with the exception of the placement of the
pressure sensor PS relative to the regulators SC1 and SC2 and suction valves
SI1 and SI2.
The next issue presented in deciding the appeal of the rejection of
claims 3, 6, and 11 as unpatentable over Nohira is whether the differences in
the relative placements of components between Nohira and the claims are
such as to render the claimed invention nonobvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. The Examiner contends that these differences amount to mere
rearrangements of parts involving only routine skill in the art and thus are
not patentable distinctions (Answer 6). We agree.
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
“[T]he mere existence of differences between the prior art and an
invention does not establish the invention's nonobviousness.” Where the
gap between the prior art and Appellants’ claimed invention is not so great
as to render the claimed invention nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in
the art, the claimed invention is not patentable over the prior art. Dann v.
Johnston, 425 US 219, 229-30, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976).
Moreover, when there is a design need and there are a finite number
of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has
good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
“If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013