Appeal No. 1997-1075
Application No. 08/335,084
Wataya discloses a device for controlling ignition timing of an internal combustion engine (Fig.
1) that includes a cylinder pressure sensor 10 (which senses pressure in combustion chamber 12), a
rotation sensor 14, and a computer unit 11. As disclosed in Figure 4 and column 3, line 19 through
column 4, line 7, a single pressure measurement Pc is taken during the cylinder’s compression cycle.
The pressure measurement is used to determine the quantity of air charged in the cylinder, and
ultimately the load on the cylinder. We note that the Wataya disclosure appears to be similar to prior
art that appellants set out to improve upon. (See Specification, page 3, lines 6-15.)
In our opinion the Wataya reference, taken with physical gas laws -- knowledge of which may
be imputed to the ordinary artisan -- does not support the conclusion of obviousness reached by the
examiner. The examiner has not provided evidence (e.g., additional teachings from the prior art) to
support the assertion that the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art would
have been routine to the artisan. The mere fact that the Wataya apparatus and appellants’ claimed
apparatus share a basis in thermodynamic principles cannot support a contention that any differences in
implementation of measurements would have been routine matters in the art. “That the claimed
invention may employ known principles does not in itself establish that the invention would have been
obvious. Most inventions do.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrick GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007