Appeal No. 1998-1493
Application No. 08/377,861
(step a), and this jet is passed into the end of a flow duct
to induct air into the exhaust gas (step b). At this point,
as explained in column 2 at lines 17-19, the inducted air and
the exhaust gas are mixed homogeneously by the turbulator
(step c). Inherent in the turbulator evolution would be the
final step of claim 8 (step d), reacting the carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbons with oxygen, which would produce carbon
dioxide and water. In this regard, we note that Aronsohn also
teaches using catalysts to line portions of his device to
promote the desired exhaust gas cleaning reactions.
We therefore conclude that the teachings of the applied
prior art establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the method recited in claim 8, and the rejection of
claim 8 is sustained. In view of the appellant’s election to2
group all of the claims together (Brief, page 3), claims 9 and
10 fall with claim 8, from which they depend.
SUMMARY
2With regard to our reliance on Aronsohn alone,
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (1982).
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007