Appeal No. 98-1604
Application 08/354,539
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Only if that burden is met does the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the
applicant. Id. If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, independent claim 16 expressly requires that the
reciprocal axes of the poppet valves (which lie at acute angles
with respect to both the first and second planes) intersect the
first plane
at a point below the bottom dead center
position of said piston so that the flow
into said cylinder bore from said side
intake valve seats does not interfere.
The examiner recognizes that none of the relied on references
teaches or suggests such an arrangement but, nevertheless, takes
the position that "this angle of inclination is an obvious matter
of design choice dictated by space constraints and desired flow
direction" (answer, page 6). However, as stated on page 2 of the
appellant's specification, the claimed arrangement overcomes the
prior art problem of "interfering turbulence." Inasmuch as the
claimed arrangement solves a stated problem compared with prior
art arrangements, we do not believe it can be dismissed as an
obvious matter of design choice as the examiner proposes to do.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007