Appeal No. 1997-4053
Application 08/548,714
element as taught by Uddin. The examiner states that such a
substitution would allow more rapid heating due to the Peltier
effect. The examiner additionally states that to mount the
heating element in the intake pipe rather than the cylinder
head intake port is an obvious matter of design choice.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal
in light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner.
As a
result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter on appeal. Appellants have not
rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness with additional
evidence. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims
1 and 8, and the dependent rejected claims that depend
therefrom.
We are in agreement with the examiner's findings of
fact with respect to the Barret and Uddin references. We are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007