Appeal No. 97-1017
Application No. 08/391,421
led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them in the
manner proposed by the examiner.
It is our conclusion that the combined teachings of
Mitobe and Miyano fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 1, and
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it follows,
of claims 2-7 and 13-15, which are dependent therefrom.
Independent claim 19 recites an induction control system
whose basic components are like that of claim 1, but omits the
requirement for a single fuel injector and adds
said intake passage means including a common section
upstream of said first and second outlet sections
and which is served by first and second inlet
sections tuned to provide tuning efficiency at a
different engine running condition and further
including a second throttle valve for controlling
the effective tuning of the intake passage means.
Here, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add such tuned
inlet sections to the Mitobe system in view of the teachings
of Miyano.
Like the claimed invention, Mitobe has an intake passage
means comprising first and second outlet sections divided by a
wall, with a throttle valve in one section and a flow control
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007