Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 10
Application No. 09/258,712
of each injector could be made uniform despite inherent slight variations in spring
washers 22 and inherent vertical differences between injectors as to where the
needle 120 seats. In other words, one with ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that, because fuel injector performance variability is very sensitive to
geometrical and force differences (e.g. needle movement distance and/or needle
biasing spring strength) that there needs to be some means of reducing injector
performance variability in light of these inherent differences among fuel injectors.
The spacer 124 of Sturman would be interpreted by one with ordinary skill in the
art as a category part that is available in a plurality of discrete thicknesses that
allow for performance variations to be reduced by choosing an appropriate
thickness for each fuel injector that causes two different fuel injectors to have
virtually identical valve opening pressures, despite the presence of slight
geometrical and spring strength differences. Valve opening pressure refers to the
pressure above which the needle valve will open to allow fuel to spray into the
engine cylinder. Thus, the Sturman spacer is not attached to the needle valve
member, is not guided in a guide bore, and is only present to minimize the
performance differences from one injector to another. Since the spacer 124 of
Sturman clearly shows fluid communication, and because it is properly
interpreted as being a separate spacer not attached to its needle valve member,
and because interpreting it to include a guide clearance is unsupported by
anything in the Sturman text or elsewhere, all of the § 102(b) rejections should
be reversed.
In addition, because the Sturman drawing is subject to differing
interpretations because it does not show "how the parts are put together", it fails
to provide an enabling disclosure that would support a proper § 102(b) rejection.
In other words, without more evidence, Sturmans' Figure 2 fails by itself to make
a prima facia case that Applicants' claimed invention is anticipated.
In the reply brief (pp. 1-2), the appellants further argue
One undisputed fact renders this appeal appropriate for summary
disposition. Namely, the difference between a guide clearance and a non-guide
clearance in the fuel injector art can be less than the thickness of a line on a
typical patent drawing. Thus, Applicants respectfully assert that some additional
evidence, such as a text description and/or extrinsic evidence, must be included
in order to appropriately assert that the cited patent drawing anticipates the
claimed invention that includes limitations not capable of being clearly depicted
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007