Appeal No. 2004-0951
Application 09/498,309
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the plain language of the appealed claims
specifies that the tubular shield of the claimed igniter “includes a plurality of openings
therethrough” which form an “oriented spiral passageway,” that is, the tubular shield has, inter
alia, holes and/or slots arranged in the specified manner, including the arrangements disclosed at
pages 17-20 and depicted in the figures of the specification. The so arranged opening through
the tubular shield admit gases to the interior of the claimed igniter.
Contrary to the arguments advanced by the examiner and by appellant, we find that Suzuki
‘743 would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art an igniter plug 1 having a plurality of
grooves 6 around the firing tip 16 of center electrode 8 in the spark gap region S.G. at the lower
end of annular ground electrode 2, as depicted in Suzuki ‘743 Figs. 1 through 4 (see cols. 2-3).
Indeed, we find that this reference would have disclosed to this person that grooves 6 are of “semi-
circular shape in section” and that “the air flow . . . is admitted into the grooves to pass
therealong,” as seen from arrows 13 b (col. 2, lines 4-5 and 56-60, and col. 3, lines 5-8). Thus, the
air flow is along the surface of grooves, not through the grooves. In other words, the grooves of
Suzuki ‘743 are not slotted “openings” which admit gas inside annular ground electrode 2.
Accordingly, on this record, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art
would not have been motivated to modify the igniter with “openings” known in the prior art as
acknowledged by appellant in the specification, by replacing the “openings” thereof with the
closed grooves of the igniter plug of Suzuki ‘743 because of the difference in manner of
operation as appellant argues in the brief. Furthermore, we determine that even if one of ordinary
skill in this art would have combined the acknowledged prior art igniter with the igniter plug by
Suzuki ‘743, the result would have been the use of grooves instead of “openings” in the tubular
shield of the prior art igniter, which is not the claimed igniter encompassed by the appealed
claims. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1438-41 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Therefore, we determine that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness of the claimed igniter encompassed by the appealed claims over the
combined teachings of the applied prior art, and thus, we reverse the grounds of rejection which
are both based on this combination of references.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007