Appeal No. 2003-0725
Application 09/629,978
output of the engine when the remaining quantity detector detects
that the reaming [sic, remaining] quantity of the fuel is under
the fixed value (column 3, lines 20-23, 26-29)" (EA3). As
appellants note, this portion of Koga refers to a change in the
amount of supplied fuel, not the remaining fuel. Further, in a
parallel vehicle, it is the assistance of the output of the motor
by the engine that is restricted not the assistance of the output
of the engine by the motor, as claimed (col. 19, lines 1-18).
Appellants argue that the object of the invention,
preventing the engine from running on the wrong fuel-air mixture
and thereby avoiding damage to the catalytic converter, is not
achieved by Koga since Koga does nothing when the fuel is running
out (Br11).
We agree that Koga has nothing to do with appellants'
problem of avoiding damage to the catalytic converter and does
not teach a solution to the problem.
The examiner states that apparatus claims must be
structurally distinguishable from the prior art and cites several
cases (EA8-9).
Appellants respond that "the cited case law is not applied
to the instant case in any way" (RBr5).
We agree with appellants that the examiner has not applied
the case law in the form of a rejection and so has not raised any
issue of patentability. It is not understood what problem the
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007