Ex Parte Gee - Page 5




               Appeal No. 2005-0245                                                                            Page 5                  
               Application No. 09/848,032                                                                                              


               combustion engines in the art related to internal combustion engines.  Gopp provides a solution:                        
               power the engine with alternating cylinders so that the engine can be cooled by drawing fresh air                       
               through the deactivated cylinders.  The benefit of incorporating this solution into the hybrid                          
               vehicle of Kitada would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as it would                      
               allow the hybrid electric vehicle to operate even when it is overheating and the battery is dead.                       
               The Examiner has established that there was a reason, suggestion, or motivation to make the                             
               combination which was grounded in the prior art.  Such evidence shows that the rejection is not                         
               based upon improper hindsight reconstruction.                                                                           
                       The contentions of Appellant do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s                           
               position.  We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with                         
               respect to the subject matter of claims 15-18 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by                               
               Appellant.                                                                                                              


                                                          CONCLUSION                                                                   
                       To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103                         
               is affirmed.                                                                                                            














Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007