Appeal No. 1997-2964
Application No. 08/531,103
is pivoted from the idle position (see column 3, lines 29-32).
For the reasons explained above, the combined teachings
of Lamm and Ishida establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in claims 1-7.
In making the above rejection, we have carefully
considered the arguments presented by the appellant with
regard to the examiner’s rejection. However, they have not
persuaded us that this new rejection should not be entered.
It should be recognized that the appellant’s claims do not
exclude rotary internal combustion engines or engines in which
the means for providing idle bypass air flow includes a
separate channel in addition to the openings in the throttle
valve, as is the case with Lamm.
SUMMARY
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 is not sustained
and thus the decision of the examiner is reversed.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) a new rejection of claims
1-7 has been entered.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007