Appeal No. 97-1070
Application 08/100,418
(Answer, page 4). The examiner then attempts to rely on Ina as to this feature (Answer, page 4). We
are not persuaded that Ina taught or would have suggested such a feature. Ina’s pressure
measurement at an engine rubber mount is not in-line with a crankshaft, nor is it even near a crankshaft.
Indeed, using Ina’s engine mount sensor to measure torque (and then determine acceleration from
torque) would not have made the direct measurement of crankshaft acceleration obvious. This
arrangement of Ina would actually introduce inaccuracies associated with transient engine operation as
well as error due to non-combustion related torque, which
would influence the measurement. Thus, we find that Ina actually introduces the difficulties sought to
be overcome by appellant, and teaches away from directly measuring crankshaft acceleration.
Therefore, there would have been no motivation to measure or determine acceleration without recourse
to appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we agree with appellants’ argument (Reply Brief, pages 12 to 14) that the
claimed method for measuring compression pressure directly from crankshaft acceleration is neither
taught nor fairly suggested by any of Wier, Ina, and/or Buck taken alone or in combination. We also
agree with appellants’ argument that it would not have been obvious to eliminate Wier’s pressure
sensor measurement and then use position sensing to measure compression pressure by measuring
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007