Appeal No. 97-1017
Application No. 08/391,421
Independent claim 28 also is directed to the basic
structure recited in claim 1, absent the single fuel injector.
As in claim 1, the system comprises intake passage means
terminating at port openings, but in claim 28 there is the
additional limitation of “said port openings comprising three
valve seats.” This claim stands rejected on the basis of
Mitobe and Hashimoto. In Mitobe the intake passage means
terminates in port openings comprising only two valve seats.
Hashimoto is directed to a multi-valve engine. It discloses
three intake valves for each cylinder and teaches that
[i]ntake and exhaust performance of an internal
combustion engine can be improved by increasing what
is referred to as a “valve area.” The term “valve
area” refers to the total cross-sectional area
occupied by intake and exhaust valves in a
combustion chamber of each cylinder of the engine.
For this reason, a multi-valve internal combustion
engine is typically provided with more than one
exhaust valve as well as a plurality of intake
valves. Column 1, lines 13-21.
We share the examiner’s view that, in view of Hashimoto, it
would have been obvious to provide the Mitobe intake system
with a third valve. We are not persuaded otherwise by the
arguments presented by the appellants, for the claim merely
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007