Appeal No. 2002-1853 Page 6
Application No. 09/340,339
Thus, Fujieda has recognized the same problem as the appellants, and teaches that it
can be solved by so locating the spark plug gap with respect to the fuel injector spray
that the plug is not wetted by the spray. In the embodiment of Fujieda’s Figure 2, the
cone of injected fuel from fuel injector 13 is narrow, and spark plug 14 is so located that
the gap is not within cone of sprayed fuel, albeit that the gap is vertically lower than the
fuel injector. However, in the embodiment of claim 4, wherein the cone of injected fuel
is wide, the spark plug gap is positioned vertically above the cone of sprayed fuel, in the
same manner as in the appellants’ invention. Thus, both embodiments avoid the
problem of wetting the plug gap.
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious,
in view of the explicit teachings of Fujieda quoted above taken with the showings of the
embodiments of Figures 2 and 4, to modify the Tsuchida ‘638 engine to locate the
spark plug gap vertically above the fuel injector nozzle so that wetting the spark plug
with fuel from the injectors is avoided in order to prevent incomplete ignition of the fuel.
This being the case, it is our conclusion that the combined teachings of these two
references establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 1, and we will sustain the rejection.
The appellants’ argument that this teaching of Fujieda is inapplicable to the
situation at hand because it is disclosed in the context of an engine in which a pre-
combustion chamber is used is not persuasive because claim 1 contains no limitation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007