Appeal 2007-0655
Application 10/314,157
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 4-6
over Shimotori. We agree with the Examiner that Shimotori describes,
within the meaning of § 102, a system comprising a fuel tank containing a
concentrated fuel (107), and a fuel controller (117) that connects to and
delivers to a reservoir 116 of diluted fuel and water.
A principal argument of Appellants is that Shimotori fails “to teach a
‘fuel controller’ which ‘delivers’ both fuel and water or a fuel controller that
is even capable of delivering both fuel and water” (Br. 11 last sentence).
Appellants contend that fuel tank 107 of Shimotori delivers neat methanol,
not a solution of methanol and water. However, the Examiner has presented
evidence to support the position that neat methanol also contains water and,
indeed, the portion of the Acker reference cited by Appellants supports the
Examiner’s position since Acker describes neat methanol as “more highly
concentrated” (Acker col. 4, l. 20). Manifestly, a concentrated methanol
solution also contains water.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that control unit 117 delivers
concentrated fuel through pump 114 to, ultimately, reservoir 116, as well as
delivering water through pump 115 to reservoir 116. We note that neither
Appellants’ principal nor Reply Briefs addresses this rationale of the
Examiner.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Acker. We agree
with the Examiner that Acker describes within the meaning of § 102 a fuel
delivery system comprising a fuel tank 201 containing a concentrated fuel
and a fuel controller, element 301 or pump 202, which connects the fuel tank
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013