Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
mode to normal operation of the second mode (i.e., with the
transition during the second mode occurring at a second change
speed smaller than the first change speed (in the first mode) so
that a torque shock after the changeover of injection mode is
reduced appropriately). Contrary to appellant’s assertions, we
see nothing in Iida ‘947, column 12, lines 28-34, which teaches
away from appellant’s invention. As the examiner has indicated,
the second-term injection lean mode of Iida ‘947 corresponds to
appellant’s first mode, while the first-term injection lean mode
encompasses appellant’s transitional mode, and the stoichio-
feedback mode corresponds to appellant’s normal second mode.
Although Iida ‘947 also has an additional open-loop mode of
injection, nothing in appellant’s claims on appeal precludes any
such additional injection mode.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 12, 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Iida ‘947. As is apparent from
appellant’s statement of the grouping of claims on page 3 of the
brief, appellant has chosen not to argue claims 13-23 separately
from independent claim 12, and claims 25 and 26 separately from
independent claim 24, from which they depend. Accordingly, we
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007