Appeal No. 1997-1873
Application 08/300,855
Upon our close review of Kay, we fail to find that Kay has any teachings of determining
whether an engine is in the steady state position. We agree with the Examiner that Kay states in column
6, lines 8 through12, that the adjustment procedure is based on the presumption that, under steady state
operation conditions, the flywheel speed at the end of each firing interval should be the same as at the
beginning of that interval. However, we do not agree that Kay teaches a determination of a steady
state operating condition as recited in Appellant's claims. Kay simply teaches that they are presuming
that the engine is under a steady state condition, but does not teach any method of determining how to
determine whether the engine is in a steady state operating condition.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kay in view
of Matsuno. We fail to find that Matsuno closes the gap as well. Matsuno does not teach the method
steps as recited in Appellant's claims of determining whether an engine is at the steady state. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as not providing an
enabling disclosure of the claimed invention. In particular, the Examiner argues that the specification
does not disclose any details of diagnosis of an engine. Claims 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons stated in the objection to the specification.
On pages 7 and 8 of the appeal brief, Appellant argues that the specification does in fact
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007