Appeal No. 2004-1013
Application No. 09/985,553
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balko in view of Oshima and further in view of
Schnaibel.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 11 and 13) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 12) for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner regarding the
merits of these rejections.
Discussion
Looking first at the rejection of the independent claims on
appeal as being unpatentable over Balko in view of Oshima,
independent apparatus claim 1 calls for a controller to control the
amount of fuel and exhaust gas introduced into the reformer in
accordance with an air/fuel ratio of the engine, independent
apparatus claim 12 contains similar limitations in means plus
function format, and independent method claim 13 sets forth the
step of controlling the amount of fuel and the amount of exhaust
gas supplied to the reformer in accordance with an air/fuel ratio
of the engine. Thus, each of the independent claims on appeal, in
one way or another, requires the controller to utilize an air/fuel
ratio of the internal combustion engine as one of the parameters
for controlling the amounts of fuel and exhaust gas supplied to the
reformer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007