Appeal No. 98-1310
Application 08/368,685
the combined teachings of Burk and Laprade. We will not,
however, sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 8-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Burk and
Adamczyk. Additionally, pursuant to our authority under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we will enter a new rejection
of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Burk and Laprade.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 8-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burk in view
of Adamczyk, the examiner notes that Burk in the embodiment of
Fig. 11 teaches adding supplemental air at a point downstream
of the hydrocarbon trap 24 by means of an air pump 32 and
thereafter concludes that it would have been obvious to use an
air/fuel ratio sensor to control the air supply from the pump
32 of Burk in view of the teachings of Adamczyk. We will not
support the examiner's position.
As to claims 1, 3-5, 8 and 9, we observe that independent
claim 1 expressly sets forth the step of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007