Appeal No. 97-1070
Application 08/100,418
Even so, we will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in light of the applied
references taken as a whole, the subject matter of claim 1 would not have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a method of determining compression pressure in a
running engine comprising the steps of measuring acceleration of a crankshaft in the running engine to
provide an acceleration variable, and providing a compression pressure variable indicative of a
compression pressure based on the measured acceleration variable. The examiner (Answer, pages 3 to
6) relies on Wier to show the recited feature of determining compression pressure by finding cam and
crank positions "centered proximate a maximum rate of compression," relies on Ina to indirectly show
that torque determination is similar to measuring crankshaft acceleration and that intake manifold
pressure be used to determine combustion pressure, and relies on Buck to show that measuring
crankshaft acceleration is very well known in the art as a means for testing compression. The examiner
then states that although Buck teaches taking measurements during cranking (i.e., starting), there is no
reason why the measurements could not be taken while the engine is running (Answer, page 5).
We find that three important recited features of appellants’ representative claim 1 on appeal are
neither taught nor would have been suggested by the applied references taken as a whole: first, that a
crankshaft acceleration is measured; second, that the measurement be made while the engine is running;
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007