Appeal No. 97-2806
Application No. 08/391,234
the only relevance Suzuki appears to have to the instant claimed
invention is in the teaching of a fuel injector. Suzuki does not
teach or suggest the claimed type of sensor, the claimed
electrode or the electrode surrounding the fuel injector.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rationale for substituting the fuel
injector of Suzuki for the spark plug of Kizler appears to have
been motivated merely by appellant’s disclosure rather than by
anything suggested by the applied references.
Further, the requirement of the instant claims that the
electrode surrounds the fuel injector makes it clear that the
sensor, which comprises the sleeve-shaped electrode arranged in
the duct surrounding the fuel injector, is separate from the fuel
injector itself. Yet, while the examiner relies on Bullis for
the teaching of surrounding the fuel injector with a sensor, it
is clear from Bullis that either the sensor and fuel injector are
entirely separate units located apart from each other [See
Figures 1 and 6, for example] or, in Bullis’ alternative
embodiment [See column 15, lines 52-55], the sensor is
“incorporated” in, i.e., made integral with, the structure of the
injector. Thus, we find no teaching or suggestion in the applied
references of providing distinct fuel injector and sensor units
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007