Ex parte BARNES et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1999-0276                                                        
          Application 08/283,099                                                      

          (1) Claims 1 to 3, unpatentable over Igashira in view of                    
          (2) Claim 4, unpatentable over Igashira in view of Tsai ;1                    
          (3) Claims 5 and 6, unpatentable over Igashira in view of                   
          Tsai, further in view of Barnes.                                            
               First considering the rejection of claim 1, the                        
          examiner's position as stated on pages 2 and 3 of the final                 
          rejection (Paper No. 15) is, in essence, that it would have                 
          been obvious to modify the Igashira injection system to                     
          correct the injection timing based on engine temperature,                   
          asserting that the indirect sensing of viscosity disclosed by               
          Barnes at col. 4, lines 31 to 33,                                           
               is the use of engine temperature, since engine                         
               temperature and its relationship to fuel                               
               temperature, and thus fuel viscosity, is well known                    
               in the art. Also, coolant temperature is clearly                       
               identified in Barnes as an input into fuel quantity                    
               calculations, and the quantity is used to set                          
               injection timing (column 4, lines 28-54).                              
          The examiner further argues on pages 4 and 5 of the answer                  

               1Since claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, it seems                       
          incongruous for the examiner not to have included Barnes in                 
          the rejection of claim 4.  However, in the view we take of                  
          this case, this incongruity is of no consequence.                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007