Appeal No. 1998-0842
Application No. 08/536,350
and
(2) Muraki et al. disclose dual catalytic converters, which may
be pertinent to a claim such as claim 10.
In addition, Cornelison et al. Pat. No. 5,170,624, cited by
appellant at page 4, lines 5 and 22, discloses electrically
heating a catalytic converter, and an exhaust system with two
catalytic converters (Fig. 13).
The examiner should also consider whether claim 9 should be
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based
on a nonenabling disclosure (cf. specification page 6, lines 9
to 12).
Conclusion
(a) The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 11 is reversed.
(b) Claim 4 is rejected pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
(c) The application is remanded to the examiner.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule
notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off.
Gaz. Pat. and Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection shall not
be considered final for purposes of judicial review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007