Appeal No. 1997-4373 Page 8
Application No. 08/332,656
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and claim 2 which depends therefrom, as
being anticipated by Fujimori.
As to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 3 through
6 and 27 which depend from claim 1, we have reviewed the
teachings of Masahiko, Paganon and Abe but find nothing
therein which overcomes the above-noted deficiency of
Fujimori. In particular, while Masahiko and Abe both disclose
high pressure fuel injection pumps having delivery valves at
the output ports thereof, these delivery valves are disposed
on positive displacement, plunger-type pumps, not on electric
turbine pumps such as the Fujimori pump, and we find no
suggestion in any of these references to either replace the
turbine pump of Fujimori with a plunger-type pump as disclosed
by Masahiko or Abe or to provide a delivery valve in the
output port of the turbine pump of Fujimori.
Moreover, with further regard to claims 3 through 5,
which require that the pressure reducing valve be solenoid
operated, Fujimori's objective is to maintain a constant
pressure differential between the delivery pressure of the
pump and the inner pressure of the intake manifold (abstract).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007