Appeal No. 2005-1407
Application No. 09/978,510
Figure 1 uses the European ECE-24 method, but the Heinz reference
does not describe the procedure. Appellants measure power by
calculating the length of time to accelerate the high pressure
common rail engine from 50 km/hr to 120 km/hr (see specification,
page 5; lines 20-22). Appellants have not carried the burden of
showing that these two methods are comparable.
For the above reasons we conclude that the method claimed in
the appellants’ claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the teachings of
Barry.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Barry is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administration Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007