Appeal No. 2002-2329 Page 2
Application No. 09/647,815
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method of operating an internal combustion
engine. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which has ben reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Nakase et al. (Nakase) 4,199,938 Apr. 29, 1980
Takeshima et al. (Takeshima) 5,473,890 Dec. 12, 1995
Sultan 5,706,652 Jan. 13, 1998
Cullen et al. (Cullen) 5,722,236 Mar. 3, 1998
Deeba et al. (Deeba) 6,105,365 Aug. 22, 2000
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claims 1, 2, 10 and 14 on the basis of Cullen in view of Takeshima.
(2) Claims 3, 4 and 6 on the basis of Cullen in view of Takeshima and Sultan.
(3) Claim 5 on the basis of Cullen in view of Takeshima, Sultan and “design choice.”
(4) Claims 7 and 8 on the basis of Cullen in view of Takeshima, Sultan and “design
choice.”
(5) Claim 9 on the basis of Cullen in view of Takeshima, Sultan and Deeba.
(6) Claims 11 and 12 on the basis of Cullen in view of Takeshima and Nakase.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007