Appeal No. 2003-0725
Application 09/629,978
examiner sees in the claims. Claim 1 does define structurally
over the prior art to Koga.
For the reasons stated above, we find that claim 1 is not
anticipated by Koga. The anticipation rejection of claims 1-6,
13-18, and 23-26 is reversed. Lipinski does not cure the
deficiencies of Koga with respect to claim 1 and, thus, the
obviousness rejection of claim 27 is reversed. Claim 16 recites
the limitations of claim 1 plus detecting the quantity of fuel
remaining by the air-fuel ratio. The added reference to Yano
does not cure the deficiencies of Koga as to the missing
limitations of claims 1 and 16. Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claims 7-12 and 19-22 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-27 are reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007