Appeal No. 2002-1827 Page 3
Application No. 09/428,594
Independent claim 1 recites the appellant’s exhaust gas scavenging invention as
comprising at least three exhaust passages extending from the engine, each including
an outlet, the outlets being equidistant from a common center line and terminating
“substantially in an outlet plane, the exhaust passage outlets defining a center space
thereamong,” a collector interfacing with the exhaust passages at a transition collector
portion, and
a flow enhancement element in sealed arrangement with the exhaust
passages at the outlet plane to close the center space and extending in
an extended position along the common center line into the transition
collector portion.
It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter recited in the claims is
anticipated1 by McManus. This reference is directed to a variable tuned exhaust
system for an internal combustion engine. The examiner focuses on the embodiment
shown in Figures 2A and 2B, with regard to which the examiner finds that McManus
discloses “a flow enhancement element (16, 24, 25) in sealed arrangement with the
exhaust passages at the outlet plane to close the center space and extending solely
from the center space into the transition collector portion (lines 64-67 of column 3).”
The appellant argues in rebuttal that the reference does not support the conclusion that
the center space in the McManus device is closed and, even if that were considered to
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007