Appeal No. 2000-2000
Application No. 09/105,124
using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor.” Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d
at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 311, 312-
13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
In the present case, we find that the examiner has not
pointed to any specific teaching in the prior art to modify Obata
with the disclosure of Gluntz in such a way that it meets the
recited claim limitations. The mere assertions by the examiner
for the suggested modification without any specific reference to
any evidence in the prior art relied upon in the rejection is
sheer speculation on the part of the examiner. Whereas it may be
well known to an artisan to run an internal combustion engine
with an optimum air-fuel ratio, to make the jump from that to the
specifics recited in the claim is not justified within the
meaning of obviousness requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1
and of the other independent claims 7 and 13 which contain
limitations similar to those in claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007