Appeal No. 1996-2893
Application 08/370,153
within an internal combustion engine. According to the examiner, Harbert has everything
except a lens. The examiner asserts that since Harbert discloses the use of a camera, it
would have been obvious to form a lens from the machining or polishing of the quartz or
sapphire rod in Harbert, for the purpose of focusing the light onto the photoelectric element
or camera [answer, page 4, final rejection, pages 9,10].
The appellants argue that Harbert, also, only discloses the sensor to study the
overall luminosity from the combustion phenomena in the cylinder. It does not contemplate
taking the thermal images from within the combustion chamber. Even though Harbert
mentions a camera to record the luminosity within the combustion chamber, it is only a
picture or image of a point in the chamber [brief, pages 11 and 12].
The examiner responds by basically repeating his contention in the final rejection
that the presence of the camera in the Harbert device suggests the modifying of Harbert’s
quartz rod into a lens which will then produce a thermographic image [answer, page 10].
We again deal with the fundamental difference between prior art such as Harbert
and the invention of claim 1. The difference is that the invention contemplates taking a
thermographic image of a field of view rather than an overall image of a point.
As we discussed in section A above, we rely on the applicants’ specification on the
explanation of this difference. As such, we find that Harbert does not teach or disclose the
invention of claim 1. We agree with the appellants that the examiner’s position is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007