Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
Appellant’s response to the examiner’s rejection essentially
consists of an assertion that the system and method of Iida ‘947
are very different than what is being disclosed and claimed by
appellant (however, without any explanation from appellant as to
why or how they are different); an assertion that the examiner
has not shown how the indicated modes in Iida ‘947 correspond to
appellant’s claimed modes; and an assertion that Iida ‘947
teaches away from appellant’s invention.
Having reviewed and evaluated Iida ‘947, we must agree with
the examiner that the method, control element (70) and internal
combustion engine disclosed therein anticipate the corresponding
method, control element and internal combustion engine claimed by
appellant. As noted in column 3, lines 55-60, of Iida ‘947, the
objective therein is to provide a control apparatus and method
for a cylinder-injection spark-ignition internal combustion
engine, which apparatus and corresponding method are capable of
always maintaining an appropriate combustion state and a
stabilized engine operating state in which no substantial torque
shock is caused upon changeover of injection mode. Of particular
importance in this regard is the disclosure at column 5, lines
11-56, of Iida ‘947, wherein a transitional operation is broadly
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007