Appeal No. 96-3445
Application 08/233,088
appears in claims 2 and 3, as functional language, we do not
agree. In our view, the claims require the injector to be
configured such that the volume of the central passage between
valve disc 70 and valve seat 26 is in the range of about ten to
twenty times the maximum amount of fuel injected during a
metering event.
In regard to the McKay disclosure, the examiner is of the
opinion that since the fuel fed to the combustion chamber of
McKay during a metering event is variable, the McKay injector
fulfills the above limitation under the proper conditions such as
during idling when the amount of fuel delivered is very small
(Examiner’s Answer at page 3). However, as McKay does not
disclose or suggest any particular relationship between the
volume of the central passage and the amount of fuel delivered
during a metering event, there is no factual basis for the
examiner’s finding. As stated W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. V.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 952 (1984):
[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art
with knowledge of the invention in suit, when
no prior art reference or references of
record convey or suggest that knowledge, is
to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007