Appeal No. 96-3130
Application 08/225,653
sharp, angular change in direction just prior to inlet valve seat
46 (much the same as that depicted by Piatti in Fig. 10), a flow
constricting projection 58 (which is stated in column 3, lines
41-43, to "increase the amount of airflow" and thus would
necessarily provide for increased velocity in much the same
manner as the appellants' flow constricting means or choke 99)
and a V-shaped protuberance 60 that includes a reaction surface
(the sides of the protuberance), which protuberance is stated to
divide the flow of air or mixture passing
through the port and direct it relatively
smoothly around the protruding valve guide
portion and the associated valve stem.
[Column 3, lines 20-23.]
In our view, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found
it obvious to provide the head of Piatti with (1) a flow
constricting means as taught by Sperry at 58 (which of necessity
increases the velocity) in order to achieve Sperry's expressly
stated advantage of increasing the amount of airflow and (2) a V-
shaped protuberance in order to achieve Sperry's expressly stated
advantage directing the airflow "relatively smoothly."
As to the appellants' contention that neither Piatti nor
Sperry recognizes the problem that they were attempting to solve,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007