Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
17-22) as claimed are included” (answer, page 2). In other
words, the examiner considers the claim limitations relating to
the “engine load detector” to be met by Yamashita’s disclosure
that “the first embodiment calculates the intake air quantity QA
based on the readings of the air flow meter 28,” the claim
limitations relating to the “accumulator” to be met by
Yamashita’s disclosure that “the [QASUM] calculation [by CPU 32]
is performed by an accumulated intake air quantity calculating
routine shown in FIG. 7," the claim limitations relating to the
“first comparator” to be met by Yamashita’s disclosure that
“[w]ith the accumulated intake air quantity QASUM stored in step
502, the CPU 32 goes to step 503 in which a check is made to see
if the value ’QACLO’ exceeds a predetermined deterioration
reference value QACDT,” and the claim limitations relating to the
“catalyst deterioration determiner” to be met by Yamashita’s
disclosure that “[i]f QACLO > QACDT, the CPU 32 enters step 504
in which the catalyst deterioration flag XCATDT is set to ’1’.
In step 505, the CPU 32 stores the deterioration information into
the backup RAM 35 and executes a predetermined diagnostic process
(e.g., illumination of the diagnostic lamp 29).”
As framed by the appellant, the dispositive issue with
respect to the examiner’s rejection is whether Yamashita responds
to the relationship set forth in claim 1 between the “parameter
values” which are arithmetically determined by the engine load
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007