Appeal No. 1997-2964
Application No. 08/531,103
the fact that it would appear not to solve any problem present
in Lamm or improve upon the operation of the Lamm valve. This
being the case, it is our conclusion that the references as
applied fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim
1. We therefore will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 2-7, which depend therefrom.
New Rejection By The Board
Of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new rejection:
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lamm in view of Ishida. While this
rejection utilizes the same references as the examiner’s
rejection, it is based upon different rationale, and therefore
is presented as a new rejection.
As is independent claim 1, Lamm is directed to a throttle
valve arrangement for an internal combustion engine. Using
the language of claim 1 as a guide, Lamm discloses a
butterfly-type throttle valve (5) supported for rotation on an
axis in an induction passage (2), and having a peripheral
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007