Appeal 2007-1465
Application 10/229,414
requires the poppet valve and ribs to be a unitary, one-piece structure or
even integrally formed. It is well established that limitations not appearing
in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Having determined that Otto's poppet 30 includes the part 58, and thus
fins 59 of part 58, as a part thereof, we conclude that Appellant's arguments
fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 15. The
rejection of claims 1 and 15, and claims 7 and 14 which Appellant has not
argued separately from claim 1, as anticipated by Otto, is sustained.
Claims 2-4 and 16
The issue involved in this rejection is whether it would have been
obvious to secure the fins 59 to the housing 22 (i.e., internal peripheral
surface 46 of housing 22), rather than to the poppet 30, so as to extend from
the internal peripheral surface 46 toward the poppet 30, as proposed by the
Examiner (Answer 4 and 8). We agree with the Examiner that such a
modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of Appellant's invention.
When there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill 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 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. Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397
(2007).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013