Appeal No. 2004-1811
Application 10/253,785
to the outer ring wall, at an upper end, by the combustion bowl
wall and at a lower end by a lower wall; an inner oil gallery
(142) between said walls and having a top (94) which extends
above the top edge of the upper ring groove (66); a pair of
depending pin bosses having pin bores (118) aligned along a pin
axis; and a piston skirt (44) formed as one immovable piece with
the pin bores and having upper and lower surfaces. The examiner
concedes (answer, page 4) that the piston of Jarrett does not
have any of the various dimensional relationships set forth in
claim 1 on appeal.
To account for the many noted differences between the piston
of Jarrett and the steel monobloc piston of appellants’ claim 1,
the examiner looks to the Automotive Industries article and
Ballheimer, urging that the Automotive Industries article teaches
an aluminum piston having certain of the dimensional
relationships required in appellants’ claim 1, and that
Ballheimer teaches a steel piston having CH = .45-.60. The
examiner then concludes (answer, page 5) that
Since Basic Features of Good Piston Design teaches
dimensions for an aluminum piston, since Ballheimer et al
teaches that some of the dimensions are for steel pistons,
and since Jarrett does not teach dimensions of the steel
piston; it would have been obvious at the time the invention
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007