Appeal No. 1999-0276
Application 08/283,099
(1) Claims 1 to 3, unpatentable over Igashira in view of
Barnes;
(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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007