Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
the pressure sensor relative to the suction valves and regulators is simply the
result of ordinary creativity, not innovation. We thus conclude that the
differences between the subject matter of claims 6 and 11 and the
arrangement of Nohira are not such as to render the subject matter of these
claims nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection of claims
6 and 11 is sustained.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Nohira
in view of Brachert. Claim 2 recites that the suction valves are in an
uninterrupted flow path with the pumps and a single check valve in fluid
communication with the reservoirs and with output hydraulic passages in
fluid communication with the master cylinder. As illustrated in Fig. 7 of
Nohira, each of valves TI1 and TI2, which correspond to suction valves SC1
and SC2 of Fig. 9, is in an uninterrupted flow path with a first hydraulic
passage in fluid communication with the master cylinder MC and with a
second hydraulic passage connected between a single check valve in fluid
communication with the reservoir RS1 or RS2 and a one-way valve in fluid
communication with the pump HP1 or HP2. Inasmuch as the one-way flow
valve between the second hydraulic passage and the pump HP1 or HP2
always permits flow from the second hydraulic passage to the pump HP1 or
HP2, we find that Nohira’s suction valves SC1 and SC2 are in an
uninterrupted flow path with the pumps and a single check valve in fluid
communication with the reservoirs and with output hydraulic passages in
fluid communication with the master cylinder. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 2 as unpatentable over Nohira in view of Brachert is sustainable on the
basis of Nohira alone. In affirming a multiple reference rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on fewer than all of the references relied
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013