Appeal No. 98-1050
Application No. 08/558,163
is found in the self evident advantages of making further use
of the existing compressed air supply system.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of Umemoto, Kubis and Simonyi establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
recited in claim 1, and we therefore will sustain the
rejection. Inasmuch as the appellant has chosen to group
claims 2 and 5-7 with claim 1, we also shall sustain the
rejection of these claims.
Claim 3 has separately been rejected as being
unpatentable over the three references applied against claim 1
et al., taken further with Greene. This claim adds to claim 2
the requirement that the additional air actuated system be a
variable throttle mechanism. Greene discloses a throttle
valve that responds to positive air pressure in order to
appropriately shift the gears in the transmission. It is our
view that this would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art that a throttle valve is one of those engine
accessories that can be operated by a compressed air system,
and we therefore will sustain this rejection. The appellant
has argued that claim 3 requires the presence of an engine
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007