Appeal No. 97-1070
Application 08/100,418
crankshaft acceleration (Brief, page 5 and Reply Brief, page 10). Further, we conclude that it would
not have been obvious to modify Wier with Buck’s compression test teaching since that would only
result in a compression measurement without the engine running.
Appellants state that Wier (column 2, lines 2+) suggest detecting "faulty firing" which is
unrelated to measuring "compression pressure" as recited in the claims (Brief, pages 9 to 10). We
agree. We find that Wier, as well as Buck’s power test embodiment, teach detection of faulty engine
operation, such as misfiring or lack of fuel, which can be indicative of low compression. However,
Wier and Buck teach concepts which are broader than that claimed in claim 1 on appeal
of determining compression pressure. In other words, low compression may lead to faulty firing, but
faulty firing does not necessarily indicate low compression is present. Faulty firing could be the result of
several other engine difficulties (loss of fuel, failure of ignition circuit, etc.). Therefore, we find that
representative claim 1 on appeal, which is specifically directed toward determining compression (and
not the broader concept of faulty firing) is narrower in this respect than what is taught or would have
been suggested by the references relied on by the examiner.
Appellants argue that Ina relates to detecting a torque variation, and not a compression
measurement as claimed (Brief, pages 10 to 11), because Ina (column 2, lines 49+) measures torque
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007