Appeal No. 96-1087
Application 08/068,700
portion is well within the claimed range of 0.8-1.5 mm." We disagree with the Examiner.
Appellants have argued that the Examiner has computed the value of L from a ratio of
values measured from the drawings in Takamura to arrive at a value within the claimed
range. We do not find that the drawings are drawn to scale, therefore it would be
inappropriate to determine/extrapolate exact values from these drawings as actual
evidence of the value of "L". The Examiner has provided no other teaching of the value of
"L" in light of appellants' dispute as to the accuracy of the drawings. Nor has the Examiner
provided any teaching of the relative value of "L" or how it may be affected by the
composition of the materials used in the spark plug.
With respect to appellants' rebuttal to "[t]he Examiner's suggestion that the various
design parameters recited in claims 1 and 2 can be determined 'as a design expedient'",
the Examiner has not provided further evidence nor a line of reasoning as to how the
skilled artisan would have been lead to achieve the recited relationships. (See brief at
pages 13-14.) We agree with appellants. The examiner need only have
found one teaching or motivation to achieve a single spark plug meeting any of the recited
relationships in claims 1 or 2, but has not provided evidence thereto.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007