Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668
reasonably construed “an injection end” to include the end-face 13 (i.e.,
sleeve) of nozzle needle 5 which includes inlet throttle 19 through which
fuel is throttled (i.e., injected).
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 28.
CLAIM 29
Appellant argues that Boecking does not disclose the claim feature
“the position of the adjusting body is variable in the sleeve via a first
adjusting tool” (Br. 5). Appellant further argues that Boecking’s bush 16
moves by variation in fluid pressure not via an adjusting tool (Br. 5).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
The Examiner takes the position that claim 29 does not require the
adjusting tool (Answer 7). Stated differently, the Examiner contends that
claim 29 only requires that the adjusting body be capable of adjustment
(Answer 7). We agree.
Claim 29 does not require an adjusting tool be part of the claimed fuel
injector. As the Examiner indicates, Appellant discloses that the adjustment
bolt 45 (i.e., adjusting tool) is removed from the fuel injector and the filter
element 25 is replaced in the central recess 47 after adjustment
(Specification 8: 26-29). This disclosure indicates that the adjustment tool is
not part of the fuel injector. Rather, the claimed fuel injector need only have
an adjusting body that is capable of being adjusted via an adjusting tool. In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, Boecking’s fuel injector is capable of adjustment
using the control valve member 22 and the rod positioned atop control valve
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013