Appeal No. 2004-1013
Application No. 09/985,553
reformer in accordance with an air/fuel ratio of the engine, the
examiner directs our attention to the above noted portions of
Balko’s specification, as well as the paragraph spanning columns 10
and 11 thereof and Balko’s Figure 2. Based on these portions of
Balko’s disclosure, the examiner concludes (answer, page 4) that
Balko discloses a controller that controls the amount of fuel and
exhaust gas introduced into the reformer in accordance with an
air/fuel ratio of the engine.
For the reasons that follow, the examiner’s position is not
well taken. First, the examiner does not contend, and it is not
apparent to us, that Balko expressly discloses that the plasma
reactor is controlled based on an air/fuel ratio of the engine.
Second, to the extent the examiner’s position as set forth on page
9 of the answer is based on the principle of inherency, Balko’s
disclosure at column 10, lines 5-21, and elsewhere, concerning
control of the plasma reactor is much too vague to be interpreted
as inherently disclosing using an air/fuel ratio of the engine to
control the amount of fuel and exhaust gas introduced into Balko’s
plasma reactor. In this regard, the examiner has not challenged
appellants’ reasonable argument on page 5 of the main brief that
while air/fuel ratio may be derived based on oxygen content data,
these two parameters are not the same. Third, Balko’s broad
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007