Appeal No. 95-4616
Application 08/200,932
This claim also stands rejected as being unpatentable over the Japanese
reference. As was the case with claim 105, claim 33 requires that the second caging
member be detachably affixed to the first caging member, a construction which is not
disclosed by the reference. Nor, in our view, would one of ordinary skill in the art have
found suggestion in the reference to modify it so that it meets this requirement of the
claim, absent the hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure.
This claim also recites a pair of induction passages serving the engine through
the reed valve arrangement. The reference merely discloses “a suction gas passage
(B),” and is further silent as to its construction. It is the examiner’s position that the use
of two-barrel carburetors is well known, and therefore it would have been obvious to
provide two induction passages to the intake system of the Japanese reference. We
do not agree, in that we fail to perceive any suggestion which would have motivated
one of ordinary skill in the art to make such a modification to the Japanese structure,
absent hindsight.
The rejection of independent claim 33 and dependent claim 34 is not sustained.
The Rejection of Independent Claim 49
The Japanese reference also forms the basis for the Section 103 rejection of
claim 49. This claim requires that the second caging member be detachably secured to
the first, and therefore this rejection cannot be sustained for the same reason as we
expressed above with regard to claims 105 and 33. In addition, like claim 33, claim 49
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007