Ex Parte WADA - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-2278                                                        
          Application No. 09/304,267                                                  

          the temperature-rise state of the catalyst and increasing the               
          frequency of the chance for the catalyst deterioration decision”            
          (specification, page 1).  Claim 1 reads as follows:                         
               1.  A catalyst deterioration detecting apparatus for an                
          internal combustion engine, comprising:                                     
               an engine load detector operable to arithmetically determine           
          parameter values corresponding to load states of an internal                
          combustion engine;                                                          
               an accumulator operable to arithmetically determine an                 
          accumulated value by accumulating counter values corresponding to           
          said parameter values;                                                      
               a first comparator operable to compare said accumulated                
          value with a first predetermined value corresponding to an                  
          operative temperature of a catalytic converter; and                         
               a catalyst deterioration determiner operable to determine a            
          deterioration of said catalytic converter when said accumulated             
          value attains or exceeds said first predetermined value.                    


                                 THE PRIOR ART                                        
               The reference relied on by the examiner to support the final           
          rejection is:                                                               
          Yamashita et al. (Yamashita) 5,727,383            March 17, 1998            


                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as              
          being anticipated by Yamashita.                                             
               Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply                
          briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper           

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007