Appeal No. 97-1017
Application No. 08/391,421
or from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art and not from the appellants’ disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. V. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
It is the examiner’s view that Mitobe discloses all of
the subject matter recited in independent claim 1 except for
the limitation of “a single fuel injector injecting fuel into
only the other of said outlet sections [of the intake passage
means] downstream of the flow control valve for providing the
entire fuel requirements of said combustion chamber.”
However, it is the examiner’s position that this is taught by
Miyano, and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the Mitobe system to meet the terms
of the claim, in view of Miyano. We do not agree.
While the outlet sections (22 & 24) of Mitobe and their
associated throttle valve (28) and flow control valve (34)
have much in common with the system recited in claim 1, the
reference utilizes two fuel injectors, rather than the claimed
single injector. In Mitobe, a first fuel injector (40)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007