Appeal No. 96-3130
Application 08/225,653
obviousness. See, e.g., In re Fitzgerald, supra, and In re Best,
supra.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 11 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Piatti and Sperry.
Considering now the rejection of claims 22, 23 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Piatti in view of
Sperry, we observe that independent claim 22 expressly requires
that the first and second wedge portions are successively
adjacent each other in the longitudinal direction. In Piatti,
however, these wedge portions are located opposite one another in
the transverse direction. Although the examiner's position with
respect to this limitation is less than clear, apparently the
examiner is of the opinion that such an orientation can be
dismissed as a matter of design choice. We disagree. It is
self-evident that Piatti's arrangement, wherein the exhaust and
intake valves (and hence the wedges) are inclined in direction
toward each other would promote (rather inhibit) scavenging.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 22, 23
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of
Piatti and Sperry.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007