Appeal No. 97-2806
Application No. 08/391,234
Claims 9 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Kizler, Suzuki and
Bullis.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The initial burden is on the examiner to establish a case of
prima facie obviousness. In our view, the examiner has not
presented such a case.
The examiner contends that Kizler discloses all the subject
matter of instant claims 9 and 11 through 21 but for the
electrode surrounding a fuel injector. Instead, Kizler discloses
a spark plug. The examiner then relies on Suzuki for the
teaching of surrounding a fuel injector with a combustion
condition detector even though the examiner recognizes that
Suzuki employs an optical ion detector. Finally, the examiner
cites Bullis for the teaching of surrounding a fuel injector with
a start of combustion (SOC) sensor. Bullis does recognize that
the sensor may be for sensing ionization accompanying the onset
of combustion [column 5, lines 58-59 of Bullis].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007