Appeal No. 97-1070
Application 08/100,418
In reaching our conclusion on the issue raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents, the respective viewpoints of appellants
and the examiner, and all other evidence of record. As a consequence of our review, we will reverse
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 11, 14 to 16, 28 to 33, 37, and 38 on appeal.
We agree with the examiner that certain arguments by appellants are not commensurate in
scope with the claimed subject matter. For example, while appellants argue (Brief, page 4 and pages 8
to 9; Reply Brief, pages 2 to 6, pages 6 to 7, top of page 11, and page 13) that none of the applied
references teach or suggest measuring compression pressure "centered proximate a maximum rate of
compression" of an engine cylinder as recited in representative claim 1, nothing recited in claim 1
requires this to occur specifically at points +/- 30 degrees BTDC or TDC as disclosed (specification,
pages 7 to 8 and 13 to 15) and as argued by appellants. Representative claim 1 requires that the
timing need only be centered "proximate" the recited time. Thus, we agree with the examiner (Answer,
pages 3 and 5; Supplemental Answer, pages 1 to 2) that Wier teaches the recited feature of taking
measurements "centered proximate" a maximum rate of compression, especially to the extent this
feature is broadly set forth in claim 1. 5
5 We note that “the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007