Appeal No. 2002-0584
Application 08/321,028
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as being unpatentable over Weisman
in view of Takeuchi.
IV. Claim 11
Weisman teaches, or would have suggested, a system meeting
all of the limitations in independent claim 11 (reproduced above)
except for those relating to the fuel pressure sensor and the
instructions pertaining to the fuel pressure. The appellant’s
arguments that Weisman also lacks response to the limitations
relating to the quantity of fuel are similar to those advanced
with respect to claim 1, and are unpersuasive for the same
reasons. As for the fuel pressure sensor and instruction
limitations in the claim, Takeuchi would have suggested the
incorporation of such features into the Weisman system for the
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Thus, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Weisman in view
of Takeuchi.
V. Claim 12
Independent claim 12 recites a computer readable storage
medium having information stored thereon representing
instructions executable by an engine controller to control fuel
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007