Ex Parte Corba - Page 1




                          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written                              
                          for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.                             

                                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                      
                                                          ____________                                                            
                                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                       
                                                     AND INTERFERENCES                                                            
                                                          ____________                                                            
                                                     Ex parte DAVID CORBA                                                         
                                                          ____________                                                            
                                                      Appeal No. 2006-1770                                                        
                                                    Application No. 10/271,236                                                    
                                                     Technology Center 3700                                                       
                                                          ____________                                                            
                                                            ON BRIEF                                                              
                                                          ____________                                                            
                   Before  OWENS,  GROSS, and HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.                                               
                   GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                            



                                                     DECISION ON APPEAL                                                           
                          This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1                            
                   through 5 and 8 through 23.  On page 2 of the Answer, the examiner states that                                 
                   appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 14 through 19 and 21 are persuasive and that                      
                   claims 14 through 19 are allowable and that claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten in                        
                   independent form.  We note, however, that the examiner maintains a rejection of claim 19                       
                   under 35 U.S.C. §  112, second paragraph.  Accordingly, the claims remaining before us                         
                   on appeal are claims 1 through 5, 8 through 13, 19, 20, 22, and 23.                                            
                          Appellant's invention relates to an engine having an intercooler bypass for                             
                   preventing air from flowing through the intercooler when an idle state for the engine is                       
                   detected.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:                          







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007