Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
The Examiner rejected claims 10-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bailey and Sumser. With respect to claim 10, which depends
from claim 1, Appellants argue that Sumser fails to cure the deficiency of Bailey
(Appeal Br. 14). Finding no deficiency in Bailey, Appellants have failed to show
that the Examiner erred in rejected claim 10 based on the combined teachings of
Bailey and Sumser.
Appellants further argue that neither Bailey nor Sumser teach or suggest a
first check valve to prevent backflow from entering the first divided exhaust
manifold and a second check valve to prevent backflow from entering a second
divided exhaust manifold, as set forth in claim 11 (Appeal Br. 15). As explained
above with respect to claim 1, Bailey discloses check valves 64 and 66 that prevent
backflow from one exhaust manifold from entering another exhaust manifold. The
fact that backflow from other areas of the system can enter the exhaust manifolds
does not negate the function of the check valves in Bailey. Similar to claim 1,
claim 11 does not require that the check valves prevent all backflow to the exhaust
manifolds. As such, Appellants have failed to show how the Examiner erred in
finding that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art based on the combined teachings of Bailey and Sumser.
Further, Bailey’s check valves 64 and 66 prevent backflow from the intake
manifold and from a first or second exhaust manifold from entering the other
exhaust manifold. As such, the subject matter of claims 12 and 13 would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the combined
teachings of Bailey and Sumser. Appellants do not provide arguments for
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013