Appeal No. 2002-0236
Application No. 08/911,494
Appellants' argument in their reply brief (page 2) that
there is no suggestion to combine Minagawa with Katayama is
unpersuasive. While it may be true that the secondary reference
to Minagawa does not teach or suggest reducing fuel pressure in a
fuel rail in response to a safety signal like that in appellants'
claim 1 on appeal and in Katayama, that does not mean that there
is no suggestion to combine these two references in the manner
posited by the examiner. For the reason already indicated above,
we fully support the examiner's position that it would have been
obvious to utilize a fuel rail like that in Minagawa in the fuel
injector system described in Katayama. Moreover, we further
consider that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellants' invention to have provided
the fuel injection system of Katayama with a fuel supply
apparatus like that in Minagawa in order to obtain the benefits
of both the driving force control or safety system of Katayama
and the fuel supply apparatus disclosed in Minagawa. Appellants
have provided no specific argument to the contrary.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007