Appeal No. 96-3298
Application 08/361,284
longitudinal hole intersecting each second [shorter]
individual inlet pipe, the drum controller having through-
holes to open and close the second [shorter] individual inlet
pipes by rotation of the drum controller” (final rejection,
page 3). Nevertheless, the examiner has taken the position2
that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to provide the intake
manifold of Miyano et al with the
drum controller of Parr in lieu of throttle valve 45, in order
to provide a more durable, less expensive control for the
second [shorter] passage” (final rejection, page 3).
In addition, in responding to appellants’ argument, the
examiner acknowledges that one could not modify Miyano by
placing a single drum controller in a longitudinal hole
intersecting each of the shorter pipes because Miyano’s design
requires two separate and distinct valve shafts. The examiner
2According to appellants (brief, page 5), Miyano also
fails to disclose shorter inlet pipes that end at the same
flange as the long inlet pipes, as called for in claim 7, and
a common wall between each of the first and second inlet
pipes, as also called for in claim 7.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007