Appeal No. 96-3130
Application 08/225,653
brief, pages 1-9 of the reply brief and pages 6-10 of the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants' invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellants in the brief and reply brief and by the
examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not, however, sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) or the rejection of claims 22, 23 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, we will enter a new rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Considering first the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), the appellants note that claim 2 expressly requires a
"means for restricting the amount of cross flow scavenging3
between said intake valve port and said exhaust valve port"
(footnote added) and thereafter assert that there is no such
3 Page 3 of the specification indicates that scavenging is "the fuel
passing directly between the inlet and exhaust valve during valve overlap (that
period of time during which both the intake and the exhaust valves are
simultaneously open" (lines 10-12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007