Appeal No. 2002-1853 Page 5
Application No. 09/340,339
the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re
Bozak, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Insofar as the
references themselves are concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each
for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including not only the specific
teachings, but also the inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
have been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ
507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968).
There is no dispute that Tsuchida ‘638 discloses all of the subject matter recited
in claim 1, except that the spark plug gap and the fuel injector nozzle appear to be
vertically aligned (Figures 2 and 8). Thus, the primary reference fails to disclose or
teach the requirement in claim 1 that the spark plug gap be
disposed vertically above a discharge nozzle of said fuel injector and
away from the path of fuel injected therefrom for insuring that the fuel
sprayed from said fuel injector will be directed away rather than toward
said spark plug gap.
Fujieda discloses an internal combustion engine having a fuel injector and a
spark plug. In describing the embodiment shown in Figure 2, Fujieda states
if the ignition plug 14 is disposed too close to the [injector] spray, the
ignition plug 14 gets wet with the spray, so that incomplete ignition may be
caused. Therefore, it is important to properly determine the above
positional relation (column 4, lines 19-23).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007