Appeal No. 2000-2000
Application No. 09/105,124
Appellants therefore argue that there is no motivation in the
prior art to modify the Obata reference with the teaching of
Gluntz to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner responds
(answer at page 4) that:
Here, the motivation indeed does come from the prior
art. It does not necessarily spring from the explicit
teachings of the cited references, but instead it rises
from an appreciation of the knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specifically, it is notoriously well-known in the art
to control the air/fuel ratio of an internal combustion
engine to an optimum point (as at least suggested by
col. 4 of the Obata reference). It is also known that
blow-by gas, when recirculated in a PCV-type system,
alters the overall a/f ratio (again, this fact is at
least alluded to in col. 4 of Obata).
Appellants respond (reply brief at page 2) that “[n]owhere does
the Examiner explain why one having ordinary skill in the art
would be motivated when Obata ‘573 teaches that it is not
necessary [to measure the volumetric flow of the blow-by gases
for any reason at all].”
The Federal Circuit states that “[the] mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), (citing In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “Obviousness may not be established
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007