Appeal No. 98-1310
Application 08/368,685
Appellant avoids excess air which can
dilute the desorbed hydrocarbons and cool
the exhaust gas stream as it moves to a
downstream catalyst. [Brief, page 15.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant's arguments. The
broad recitation in independent claim 1 of adding supplemental
air at the engine "during the hydrocarbon operating desorption
period of the trap . . ." does not limit the supplemental air
being added only during the desorption period as the appellant
appears to believe. In other words, there is simply no claim
limitation which precludes the arrangement of Laprade wherein
supplemental air is continuously added to the engine (i.e.,
during both desorption periods and non-desorption periods).6
This being the case, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Burk and
Laprade.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejection:
It is well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon6
in support of patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5
(CCPA 1982).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007