Appeal No. 98-0807
Application 08/385,984
We REVERSE.
The appellants’ invention pertains to an apparatus for
purifying an exhaust gas of an engine, the nature of which is
readily apparent from a perusal of claim 5.
A copy of claim 5 may be found in the appendix to the
brief. The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Laurent 4,098,078 July 4,
1978
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Laurent. In the final rejection the examiner
notes Laurent in Figs. 2 and 3 teaches that the air flow from
pump 41 (1) during the “choked operation” is through pressure
controlling valve 54, heating device 55 and into the exhaust
pipe via nozzle 52 and (2) thereafter is through valve 49,
check valve 56, heating device 55 and into the exhaust pipe
via nozzle 52. In the answer the examiner states that:
The apparent reason for this valving arrangement 49,
54 is to avoid cooling the catalyst 11 by supplying
unheated air though [sic, through] line 53 during
warmup. Appellant argues that there is no
termination of electric heating by element 55 in
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007