Appeal No. 98-1310
Application 08/368,685
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Burk in view of Laprade as set forth
in the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 above. Claim 8
adds to claim 1 the limitation that the downstream catalyst
consist essentially of an oxidation catalyst while claim 9
adds to claim 1 the limitation that the downstream catalyst
comprise a three-way catalyst. Both of these arrangements are
disclosed by Burk. Burk clearly discloses that the second
catalyst (i.e., the downstream catalyst) may be the same as
the first catalyst, giving a specific example of the TWC or
three-way catalyst (see page 19, lines 28-30; see also page 6,
lines 36 and 37, "at least one of the first and second
catalysts is a three-way catalyst (TWC)"). On page 4, line
11, Burk also discloses that the first catalyst (and, hence,
the second catalyst) may be "an oxidation catalyst."
In summary:
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 is
reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007