Appeal Number: 2006-3046
Application Number: 10/130,596
The Final Office Action dated December 14, 2004 asserts that it is
well known in the art to use an engine where the cylinders are
included in a common plane. In this regard, it is well know [sic,
known] in the art to use a V-type multi-cylinder engine, an in-line
multi-cylinder engine, a horizontally opposed multi-cylinder engine, a
rotary engine, and other engines. However, the use of these engines
alone fails to provide any suggestion regarding the location of the
cylinders or the cylinder axis relative to an electronic unit (or
Yamaguchi's drive unit).
The Advisory Action dated April 29, 2005 also asserts why it would
have been obvious to position Yamaguchi's engine 11 such that the
profile of the cylinder axis is at the same inclination as the casing 10
in order to save space within the engine compartment. Because
Yamaguchi only discloses a schematic diagram of the engine 11, the
Advisory Action can only provide conclusionary statements with
regard to a location for the cylinders and the cylinder axis relative to
Yamaguchi's drive unit. The Advisory Action fails to explain how the
positioning of the cylinder axis will save space within the engine
compartment or where Yamaguchi provides any motivation to
position the cylinder axis in order to save space. If the concern were
to save space within the engine compartment, one of ordinary skill in
the art would adjust the position of the entire engine and not just the
cylinder axis within the engine compartment. The Advisory Action
also fails to identify the part of the casing 10 that has the "same
inclination" as the profile of the cylinder axis. As illustrated by
Yamaguchi's Figs. 1 and 11, the casing 10 can assume various shapes
and thus various inclinations. The Advisory Action is thus using
Appellants' claims as a template to assert that, even if the cylinder axis
was at the "same inclination" as the casing 10, the inverter unit 50 or
control unit 51 would be at the "same inclination."
Yamaguchi thus fails to provide any disclosure or suggestion with
regard to an electronic circuit that is disposed such that a plane that
includes a solid wiring is substantially perpendicular to the cylinder
axis of the engine as recited in claims 2, 4, and 5 or an electronic
circuit that is disposed in a direction such that a lowest load is caused
on the float wirings by vibrations of the engine as recited in claims 9
and 12.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013