Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
No. 11) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection. 1
DISCUSSION
I. Grouping of claims
On page 4 in the main brief, the appellant states that
“[c]laims 1 and 3 stand or fall together.” In accordance with
this statement, and pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we will
decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. Claim 3, which
depends from claim 1, shall stand or fall therewith.
II. The merits
Yamashita discloses an “apparatus for detecting a
deterioration of a catalyst disposed in an exhaust system of an
internal combustion engine” (column 1, lines 10 through 12). The
description of the apparatus at column 9, line 52, through column
10, line 22, and the depiction thereof in Figures 6 and 7 form
the factual basis for the examiner’s finding of anticipation.
The description reads as follows:
In carrying out the routine for determining the
deterioration of the three-way catalytic converter 13
in FIG. 6, the CPU 32 first checks in step 501 to see
if the catalyst activation flag XCATACT has changed
1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 8), claims 1 and 3 also
stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Japanese reference 6-264725 to Takada. Upon reconsideration (see
page 3 in the answer), the examiner has since withdrawn this
rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007