Appeal 2007-1259
Application 10/054,213
structure of the prior art must be equivalent and the function identical.
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934, 4 USPQ2d
1737, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (in banc).
V. Legal Analysis
Since the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §102(b) stands or falls
with the rejection of claim 1, our discussion is limited to claim 1 but applies
to all the claims on appeal.
Stimming appears to assert that “impressing a positive voltage pulse
on the anode” requires supplying a pre-formed or already-generated positive
voltage pulse to the anode and therefore none of Wilkinson’s fuel starvation
techniques can meet the requirement. The argument is without merit, as
even Stimming’s disclosed method of short circuiting the anode and the
cathode does not supply a pre-formed voltage pulse from the cathode to the
anode and Stimming’s other disclosed method of connecting the anode to an
external voltage source is not described in the Specification as supplying a
pre-formed or already-generated voltage pulse from the external energy
source to the anode. We interpret “impressing a positive voltage pulse on
the anode” as simply causing the appearance of a positive voltage pulse on
the anode, which Stimming does not deny all of Wilkinson’s fuel starvation
methods do.
After setting forth an analysis under 35 USC §112, ¶6, which we
need not repeat here, the Examiner construes the claim 1 language, “means
for impressing a positive voltage pulse on the anode”, as encompassing the
methods discussed in Wilkinson for fuel starvation. (Answer 5-6). In
particular, the Examiner takes the position that the means for achieving fuel
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013