Appeal No. 97-1017
Application No. 08/391,421
simply place additional structure upstream, in the same manner
as does the appellants’ invention.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of Mitobe and Miyano establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim
19, and we will sustain the rejection of this claim.
The common plenum chamber added by claim 20 is disclosed
in Miyano, as is the teaching of tuning by providing different
lengths for the inlet sections, as required by claim 21. A
teaching of originating the first and second inlet sections in
a common plenum chamber and positioning a main throttle valve
therein, as is set forth in claim 22, is provided by Miyano.
The argument advanced by the appellants with regard to the
automatic control of the throttle valve and the flow control
valve actually relies upon the basic combination recited in
independent claim 19 for patentability, and therefore is not
persuasive with regard to claim 23 inasmuch as we have
sustained the rejection of claim 19. Claims 24-27 have been
grouped by the appellants with claim 23 (Brief, page 12), and
fall therewith.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007