Appeal No. 1999-0954
Application 08/656,919
the crankshaft to be such that the piston tends to rotate
about its connection with the connecting rod in a direction
during the expansion stroke to move the upper edge of the
piston into engagement with the side of the cylinder bore
where the exhaust port is formed. In the appellants’ words,
[t]his depends upon the direction of rotation of the
crankshaft which is shown in Masuda’s Figure 3 and
is identified at 12. This figure is basically in
the same orientation as Appellants’ Figure[s] 9-11
and if the crankshaft rotates in a clockwise
direction as shown in this figure (Figure 3) then
Appellants’ [sic] will concede the reference
anticipates the invention even though it does not
describe it or, in fact, teach this important result
to those skilled in the art [brief, pages 3 and 4].
As partially indicated by this passage, Masuda does not
literally describe the relationship required by claim 1
between the exhaust port, the precombustion chamber, the
throat and the crankshaft rotation direction, or the
combustion efficiencies attributed thereto by the appellants’
specification. Nonetheless, the law of anticipation does not
require that the reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed
in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the
claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007