COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Obviousness: Ignition Plug Channel in Rotary Engine
Placement of the ignition means only in a channel known in the art to be
located in a combustion zone was found to be obvious. As no claim was
supportable by the principal disclosure, the supplementary disclosure was
not allowable. Rejection affirmed.
*********
This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the
Commissioner of the Final Action on application 218,308 (class
171-87), entitled Rotary Engine. The inventor is Siak-Hoo Ong. The
Examiner in charge issued a Final Action on March 7, 1980 refusing
to allow the application to proceed to patent.
The application relates to a rotary piston internal combustion
engine having: a chamber with a trochoidal inner surface and an
eccentrically mounted, triangular in cross-section, rotor with its
apex edges in sliding contact with the chamber; a plug channel
opening 12 in the chamber surface and having a cross-sectional
configuration which is narrower in the direction of rotation of the
rotor than in the direction of the axis of rotation of the rotor.
Figures 9, 11, 12A and 12B show the arrangement.
<IMG>
In the Final Action the Examiner refused the application on the
ground of obviousness in view of the following United States
patents:
3,698,364 Oct. 17, 1972 Jones
3,246,636 Apr. 19, 1966 Bentele
The Jones patent discloses a fuel combustion system for a rotary
piston engine having a chamber with a plug channel opening in its
surface which extends in the direction of rotation in the form of a
narrow, shallow groove 62 which is longer and narrower in the
direction of rotation than in the direction of the axis of
rotation. Figure 4 of this patent illustrates the opening used in
the structure.
(See formula 1)
The Bentele patent discloses a fuel combustion system for a rotary
piston engine having a chamber with a plug channel opening which has
a cross-sectional configuration which is narrower in the direction
of the axis of rotation of the rotor than in the direction of
rotation of the rotor. Figure 13 depicts the opening of this
patent.
<IMG>
In the Final Action the Examiner stated, in part:
The Jones patent discloses a rotary engine having a
spark plug channel which has a cross-sectional
configuration narrower in the direction of rotation
than in the direction of the axes of rotation. The
Bentele patent shows a spark plug channel which varies
in shape from the normal shape.
The primary purpose of the distorted spark plug
opening with the included fuel injector, in the cited
patents, is to promote better combustion; this in
essence is applicant's reason for providing the
various shapes of spark plug openings described and
claimed in the application.
The fact that applicant has not included the fuel
injector in the same opening as that provided for the
spark plug does not alter the reason for the variation
in shape of the said opening. The variation in shape
is intended to provide for improved combustion just as
the use of non standard openings is indicated to
provide for improved combustion in the teaching of the
cited patents.
Furthermore, since the cited patents teach spark plug
channels which vary in shape from a normally round
shape, any further variation in shape of such openings
is considered to be well within the scope of expected
skill for one in the art, and therefore not of
patentable significance.
Applicant's argument that the patent to Jones does not
relate to a rotary engine having a spark plug channel
which is narrower in the direction of rotation then in
the direction of the axis of rotation is not correct.
Figures 3 and 4 of the Jones patent show a combined
spark and fuel injection channel elongated in the
direction of rotation. The fact that the fuel
injector is included in the said channel does not
alter the fact that the spark plug is encompassed
within this channel.
Also the said channel in the Jones patent is located
at the trailing pressure turning point similarly to
that in applicant's device as disclosed in this
application.
The Applicant did not agree with the Examiner, and in the response
to the Final Action, he argued, in part:
. . .
In the present invention, we are concerned with a
spark lug arrangement alone, without dealing with any
fuel infecting nozzle, between the electrode of such
an ignition plug and the internal face of the casing
being provided a plug channel. Therefore, from the
outset, it is clear that the fuel injecting nozzle and
ignition plug arrangement of the applied patent is
directed to a different combination of elements and
structure than the ignition plug of the present
application. As above-mentioned, on one hand, the
present application does not show a fuel injection
nozzle and plug arrangement and, on the other hand,
the applied patent does not show, in case of having
such fuel injection nozzle and ignition plug
arrangement located side by side, a plug channel as in
the present application.
. . .
It is therefore clear that the applied patent and
the present application do not have the same object.
Combination of the oval, lozenge or rectangular
opening as taught in the present application with the
location thereof at the trailing of the pressure
turning point gives a better ignition result, while
the combination of the enlarged opening and location
of this opening in the applied patent gives a better
injection of fuel. Therefore, the opening of BENTELE
is related to a better injection and the opening of
the present application is related to a better
ignition.
In fact, when one compares the sizes of the two
openings, the purposes of the openings, the locations
of the openings and the elements in these openings, it
is clear that the opening of BENTELE is an injection
opening while the opening of the present application
is a plug opening.
In order to reject this application, it is rather
Figure 13 on which the Examiner has based himself.
This Figure is described in column 7, lines 52 to 72.
However, in the paragraph describing this Figure
first, there is always the reference of a plug 44",
and nozzle 46", and the recess 54" (this should be
64" ) into which the plug and nozzle project extend
across the greater portion of the width of the
peripheral roll. However, such an opening concerns
only the spray nozzle as is evident from column 7,
line 62 which says "a wide angle spray from the nozzle
is provided for, such that fuel is sprayed substan-
tially across the entire width of the combination
chamber whereby substantially all the air moved by the
rotor past the plug and nozzles passes directly
through the region of the fuel spray and efficient
combustion results". The object of such recess is not
the same as the object of the channel opening of the
present invention.
. . .
The U.S. Patent No. 3,246,636 to BENTELE discloses
that an oval channel is located at the pressure
turning point. This is clear from claim 6 and claim
7 combined and is shown in figures 5 and 6.
. . .
The present invention relates to an oval channel
which has a position located at the trailing of the
pressure turning point. The pressure turning point is
shown by position 3a of figure 25 of the present
application or position B of figure 6 of BENTELE'S
invention. Claim 1 of the present invention defines
an oval-shaped opening at the trailing of the pressure
turning point. It is because there exists a pressure
difference at a position other than the pressure
turning point to create leakage of gas, that the
present invention has such a configuration of oval
plug channel at the trailing of pressure turning
point.
Therefore, it is clear that BENTELE has an oval
channel at the pressure turning point for the purpose
of wide injection of fuel and the present invention
has an oval channel at the trailing of the pressure
turning point for improved ignition by the spark plug.
. . .
The issue before the Board is whether or not the application is
directed to a patentable advance in the art. Claim 1 reads:
1. A rotary piston internal combustion engine
comprising a peripheral wall having a trochoidal inner
surface, a rotor eccentrically mounted on a rotatable
shaft to perform a planetary motion within the chamber
defined by the inner surface of the peripheral wall,
the rotor being substantially triangular in cross-
section having its apex edges in sliding contact with
the inner trochoidal inner surface of the peripheral
wall, characterized in that said combustion engine has
an ignition system comprising a first plug channel
terminating in an opening in said trochoidal inner
surface, said opening being at the trailing of the
pressure turning point, and accommodating an electrode
of a ignition plug, the opening of said plug channel
having a cross-sectional configuration which is
narrower in the direction of rotation of the rotor
than in the direction of the axis of rotation of said
rotor.
We observe in the patents applied against the application, that
channels or openings for use with ignition means as well as with
injection means have been provided in the inner surface of a
combustion chamber in a combustion environment. The Jones patent
provides a channel which extends generally in the direction of
rotation, whereas the Bentele patent uses a channel which
extends in the direction of the axis vœ rotation. Each of these
openings are provided for ignition purposes as well as for injection
purposes. The Bentele channel has a cross-sectional configuration
which is narrower in the direction of the rotation of the rotor than
in the direction of the axis of rotation of the rotor, which
corresponds to the cross-section and the disposition of the channel
that Applicant has described and claimed.
Applicant has argued that his channel is related to a better
ignition result while that of Bentele is related to a better
injection result.
The environment in which Applicant's channel functions is in a
combustion system, just as is the environment for the channels of
the cited art, and in particular that of Bentele.
Thus, channels or openings of the configuration presented by
Applicant in his principal disclosure have been employed in
combustion systems, particularly that of Bentele. We are of the
opinion that to delete one of the combustion components which has
previously been used with such an opening in a combustion
environment, and to use only the other of the previously used
combustion components in such a known kind of opening, would not be
outside the stride of what may be expected by a person skilled in
the art. We believe that Applicant's shape of the opening provides
the same kind of function as does the shape in the Bentele patent,
and that it would continue to provide for improved characteristics
in a combustion environment for purposes of, ignition, injection, or
both ignition and injection together.
Also, we note that the Bentele patent discusses that the placement
of his channel may be at the zero pressure differential location, or
downstream, or upstream, of that location. Further we note that the
Bentele patent envisages that the plug and nozzle need not be in a
common channel. From the disclosure of Bentele which envisages
various dispositions of the channel, and the disposition of plug and
nozzle in separate, but close relationship, so that they are not in
a common channel, we are of the view that Applicant's placement of
his ignition means, only, in a channel known in the art would be
obvious to a person skilled in the art.
In summary, after reviewing the application and considering the
arguments developed, we are satisfied that the application has not
described nor illustrated any matter therein that may be considered
as more than a slight variation of known techniques. We are of the
opinion that Applicant has presented matter that should be
considered as falling into the category of that which is obvious to
a person skilled in the art, and should not be considered as
indicative of invention. We note that a supplementary disclosure
was filed which describes certain specific configurations of the
opening. However, because we are of the view that the principal
disclosure and its only claim fail to present a patentable advance
in the art, the supplementary disclosure is not allowable in view of
the requirement in Rule 57 that for a supplementary disclosure to be
allowable there shall be a claim allowable in the principal
disclosure.
We refer to the statements in Niagara Wire Weaving v. Johnston Wire
Works Ltd. (1939) Ex.C.R., by Mr. Justice Maclean, which we hold are
indicative of the kind of variation that Applicant has presented:
at page 273;
Small variations from, or slight modifications of, the
current standards of construction, in an old art,
rarely are indicative of invention: they are usually
obvious improvements resulting from experience and the
changing requirements of users.
and further at page 276;
No step is disclosed there which would be described as
invention. There is not, in my opinion, that
distinction between what was known before, and that
disclosed... that called for that degree of ingenuity
requisite to support a patent. If those patents could
be supported it would seriously impede all
improvements in the practical application of common
knowledge.
We are satisfied that no invention has been described and claimed in
the principal disclosure of the application.
We recommend that the rejection of the application be affirmed.
G.A. Asher
Chairman, Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I concur with the reasoning and findings of the Board. Accordingly,
I refuse to grant a patent on this application. The Applicant has
six months within which to appeal my decision under the provision of
Section 44 of the Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this l6th.day of December, 1981
Agent for Applicant
Robic, Robic & Associates
1515 Docteur Penfield
Montreal , Quebec
H3G 1X5