Appeal No. 1999-2454 Page 7
Application No. 08/656,106
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the
claims on appeal. Specifically, the examiner stated (second
Office action, page 2) that
the examiner has read claim 1 several times and cannot
see how the relationship between the injectors and the
rails is defined enough to examine the claim limitations.
For example, it sounds like each injector might be
sequentially operated, or the injectors might be
sequential only relative to one another. It is similarly
vague how the plural conduits are attached to the
injectors. It is possible that each injector could be
connected to plural conduits.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
An engine induction system comprised of a plurality
of fuel injectors, means for operating said fuel
injectors for spraying fuel therefrom in sequence, and
means for delivering fuel from a source to said fuel
injectors comprised of at least two separate fuel supply
conduits, each conduit being related to said fuel
injectors so that fuel is not supplied by any conduit to
two fuel injectors that inject adjacent to or
simultaneous with each other.
We find ourselves in agreement with the position of the
appellant (brief, pages 4-6, and reply brief, pages 1-2) that
the claims under appeal are definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when read in light of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007