United States Patent 6,062,927: Scope, Claim Structure, and US Landscape
US Patent 6,062,927 claims a specific intake and air-induction packaging architecture for a V-valve-configuration outboard motor. The center of gravity of the claim set is not the V-engine geometry itself; it is the intake system layout built around a single surge tank positioned at a defined location relative to the cowling and crankcase, with paired intake pipes routed along opposite sides of the V-block to the two cylinder heads.
What the claims protect, in one line
A V-block outboard motor whose intake system uses one surge tank located between the cowling lower end and the crankcase, feeding direct, side-specific intake pipes to the first and second cylinder banks without intermediate bifurcation structures that change the defined flow-path relationships.
What is the independent claim scope (Claim 1)?
Claim 1 elements (deconstructed into enforceable features)
Claim 1 requires all of the following, as a single combination:
-
Platform
- An outboard motor for propelling a watercraft with a cowling housing an internal combustion engine.
-
Engine geometry
- A V-shaped cylinder block with first and second cylinder heads forming first and second cylinder banks.
- The banks define a valley between them, juxtaposed to a first end surface of the cowling.
-
Crankcase / vertical-axis journal
- A crankcase located at the end of the block opposite the heads.
- The crankcase forms a crankcase chamber containing a crankshaft journalled for rotation about a vertical axis.
- The crankcase is juxtaposed to a second end surface of the cowling.
-
Gas systems
- An exhaust system routing combustion products from combustion chambers of each bank.
- An intake system providing air to combustion chambers of each bank.
-
The defining intake architecture
- The intake system includes a single surge tank positioned between:
- the cowling second end surface, and
- the crankcase.
- Two sets of intake piping, both extending directly from the surge tank:
- At least one first intake pipe extends in a first direction along the cylinder block to the first cylinder head.
- At least one second intake pipe extends in a second direction along the cylinder block to the second cylinder head.
Claim 1 “hinge” features (what likely drives infringement and distinguishes prior art)
- “Single surge tank” (not multiple surge tanks, not a plenum that is not a surge tank).
- Location: “between the cowling second end surface and the crankcase.”
- Direct routing: each pipe extends “directly from said surge tank.”
- V-specific feed: the two pipe directions correspond to opposite banks/cylinder heads.
Claim 1 likely interpretation anchors
- A “surge tank” is treated as a discrete air volume used for pressure/flow stabilization in the intake path (as claimed). A design that uses a common plenum but does not constitute a “surge tank” risks non-literal fit depending on claim construction.
- “Directly” constrains designs with intervening manifold components that break the “from surge tank to pipe” relationship.
What do the dependent claims add (Claims 2–10)?
Claim 2: acoustic and metering stack-up
Adds two sub-features to Claim 1:
- A silencer located at least in part under the surge tank, delivering air to the surge tank.
- A throttle body member in the flow path between the silencer and surge tank.
Practical consequence: This narrows to packaging arrangements where the silencer is under the surge tank and throttle is upstream of the surge tank, in that order.
Claim 3: side-specific component mounting around the V-valley
Adds:
- The first intake pipe is located on a first side of the V block outside of the valley.
- A first component is mounted beneath the first intake pipe.
- The second intake pipe is on a second side of the V block outside of the valley.
- A second component is mounted beneath the second intake pipe.
Practical consequence: This locks the intake pipes to positions outside the valley and links under-mounting of specific components below each pipe.
Claim 4: example mapping of Claim 3 components
Narrows Claim 3 by specifying:
- First component = ignition control.
- Second component = vapor separator.
Claim 5: optional mid-plane components
Adds:
- A third component located between the first intake pipe and the V cylinder block.
- A fourth component located between the second intake pipe and the V cylinder block.
Claim 6: defines Claim 5 examples
Narrowing Claim 5 by specifying:
- Third component = starter motor.
- Fourth component = fuel pump.
Claim 7: component side assignment
Narrowing Claim 6 by requiring:
- First component (ignition control) and third component (starter motor) on one side of the V block.
- Second component (vapor separator) and fourth component (fuel pump) on the other side.
Claim 8: alternator placement
Adds:
- An alternator mounted above the surge tank.
Claim 9: surge tank placement relative to crankcase facing surface and cowling
Adds:
- Surge tank is located between:
- a surface of the crankcase facing away from the cylinder block, and
- the cowling.
Claim 10: surge tank transverse footprint
Adds:
- The surge tank does not extend transversely beyond the sides of the crankcase.
Practical consequence: This is a packaging/geometry limiter. It targets designs where the surge tank overhangs beyond crankcase width.
Scope map: what is protected vs what is not
Protected by Claim 1 (core)
- A V-cylinder outboard with defined crankcase/cowling juxtaposition.
- A single surge tank sandwiched between cowling lower end and crankcase.
- Paired intake pipes extending directly from that single surge tank to respective heads in opposite directions.
Protected only if dependent limitations are met
- Silencer under surge tank + throttle between silencer and surge tank (Claim 2).
- Intake pipes outside the valley plus beneath-pipe mounting of defined component types (Claims 3–7).
- Alternator above surge tank (Claim 8).
- Specific surge tank location between the outward-facing crankcase surface and cowling (Claim 9).
- Surge tank not extending beyond crankcase sides (Claim 10).
Claim coverage vs competitor design patterns (high-level decision table)
| Design change vs Claim 1 |
Claim 1 literal risk |
Notes tied to text |
| Use two surge tanks (one per bank) |
High |
Claim says “a single surge tank.” |
| Place surge tank somewhere else (not between cowling second end surface and crankcase) |
High |
Location is a claim element. |
| Introduce intermediate plenum/ducting between surge tank and intake pipes |
Medium to High |
“Extending directly from said surge tank” narrows this. |
| Route one intake pipe through valley |
Medium |
Claim 3 narrows valley exclusion; Claim 1 alone does not. |
| Overhang surge tank beyond crankcase sides |
Low to Medium |
This impacts Claim 10 only. |
US patent landscape: where this claims likely sits (intake plenum vs V outboard packaging)
1) Landscape buckets likely relevant to validity and design-around
Based on the claim’s unique combination (V outboard + vertical-axis crankshaft journal + cowling/crankcase juxtaposition + single surge tank with direct side-fed pipes), the competitive and prior-art landscape that matters most usually falls into these buckets:
- Outboard intake systems using a plenum/surge volume feeding separate runners to cylinder banks.
- V-engine outboard air induction packaging where throttle, silencing, separators, and pumps are arranged within tight cowling volumes.
- Crankcase/cowling intake placement where the intake volume is constrained between cowling lower structure and engine crankcase.
2) Claim set structure suggests a narrow but “system-level” point of novelty
The dependent claims add “packaging proof points” (silencer under surge tank, alternator above surge tank, component placement under/ between pipes and block, transverse footprint limits). That pattern typically indicates:
- The independent claim is aimed at a functional flow-path architecture (single surge tank, direct side pipes).
- The dependent claims are aimed at contextual structural constraints that differentiate the filing over close alternatives.
3) Likely design-around levers
Competitors seeking to avoid infringement without redesigning the whole outboard air system would focus on:
- Replacing the single surge tank with a different architecture (multiple tanks, distributed volumes, or a manifold that is not a “surge tank”).
- Relocating the surge tank outside the “between cowling second end surface and crankcase” envelope.
- Breaking “directly” by inserting components that change the intake pipe relation to the surge tank.
Design-around that only changes which side a pump sits or whether alternator sits above the surge tank would not avoid Claim 1, because those are dependent limitations.
What the claim set implies about enforcement strategy
Strong enforcement thesis (what maps to typical accused products)
- Products with a V outboard where a single intake surge volume is positioned in the lower cowling space adjacent to the crankcase, and
- where intake runners extend directly to each head from that surge volume.
This is where Claim 1 offers the broadest protection.
Weak points in enforcement
- Accused designs that replace the surge tank with a different intake architecture (multiple volumes, different plenum geometry not considered a surge tank, or routing that breaks the “directly from the surge tank” relationship).
- Products that place the intake surge volume outside the claimed envelope between cowling second end surface and crankcase.
Key Takeaways
- Claim 1 defines the protected invention around a single surge tank positioned between the cowling lower end surface and the crankcase, feeding direct intake pipes to each cylinder head in opposite directions on a V-shaped cylinder block.
- Claims 2 and 8–10 are packaging constraints (silencer placement, throttle location, alternator position, surge tank footprint limits).
- Claims 3–7 are “component arrangement” limitations that narrow coverage to specific placements of ignition control, vapor separator, starter motor, and fuel pump relative to the intake pipes and V-block.
- The most practical design-around route against Claim 1 is to change the surge tank quantity, surge tank location, or the direct flow-path relationship between the surge tank and intake runners.
FAQs
1) Is Claim 1 limited to a particular firing order or cylinder head type?
No. Claim 1 requires the V-shaped cylinder block and first/second cylinder heads forming cylinder banks, but it does not claim firing order, head combustion chamber geometry, or valvetrain type.
2) Does Claim 1 require the silencer and throttle arrangement?
No. That is in Claim 2. Claim 1 only requires an intake system with a single surge tank and intake pipes fed directly from it.
3) If an accused motor has intake runners on the sides but a different air volume than a “surge tank,” does Claim 1 apply?
Not necessarily. Claim 1 requires a single surge tank. If the accused system does not meet the surge tank requirement under claim construction, Claim 1 may not read.
4) Can a design avoid Claims 9 and 10 while still infringing Claim 1?
Yes. Claims 9 and 10 add specific location and transverse footprint constraints. A product can still meet Claim 1 while differing on those dependent features.
5) Which dependent claims are most useful for narrowing during litigation?
Claims 2, 3–7, and 10, because they add concrete structural and positional limitations tied to packaging and component mounting relative to the surge tank and intake pipes.
References
No external sources were provided or can be reliably cited from the information in the prompt.
