Appeal No. 98-1310
Application 08/368,685
examiner apparently relies on Adamczyk for this limitation,
the sensor 20 of Adamczyk is an oxygen sensor which senses the
concentration of oxygen (see, e.g., column 3, lines 33-35),
rather than hydrocarbons as claimed.
In view of the foregoing, we will not 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.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Burk in view of Laprade, the
appellant does not argue that it would have been unobvious to
combine the teachings of Burk and Laprade in the manner
proposed by the examiner. Instead the appellant argues that:
Laprade discloses using a sensor (8)
located in exhaust pipe (4) to control the
air introduced to the engine via air pump
(12) and air inlet (6). Laprade is merely
showing the use of an air to fuel ratio
sensor to control air to the engine intake.
There is no indication or suggestion that
such a measurement would be conducted to
add the supplemental air during the
hydrocarbon desorption period of a trap to
maintain a substantially stoichiometric air
to fuel balance in the exhaust gases
flowing into the downstream catalyst zone.
As indicated in the present application,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007