Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact
that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under
§ 103.” KSR Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Turning first to claim 3, when three valves are connected together in
parallel in a hydraulic circuit, as in the case of the normally open solenoid
valve SC1 or SC2, the one-way valve and the relief valve of Nohira’s
regulator, there are only a finite number (6) of arrangements in which the
three valves can be placed relative to one another. One of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that the valves will operate individually and
together in precisely the same manner in any of these six arrangements, each
of which is within his or her technical grasp, and thus has good reason to
pursue any of the six arrangements, which present only two possibilities
with respect to positioning of the one-way valve and relief valve relative to
the normally open solenoid valve, namely, the one-way valve and relief
valve on the same side of the normally open solenoid valve or on opposite
sides of the normally open solenoid valve. We thus conclude that the
difference between Appellants’ claim 3 and the arrangement of Nohira is not
such as to render the subject matter of claim 3 nonobvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. The rejection of claim 3 is sustained.
The design issue of whether to place the pressure sensor above the
suction valves and regulator valves, as illustrated in Nohira’s Fig. 9, or
below the regulators as recited in claim 6 or below the suction valves and
regulators as recited in claim 11 likewise presents no operative mechanical
distinctions, with each element serving exactly the same function regardless
of the placement of the pressure sensor, and either placement is within the
technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art. The exact placement of
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013