The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID CORBA
____________
Appeal No. 2006-1770
Application No. 10/271,236
Technology Center 3700
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before OWENS, GROSS, and HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1
through 5 and 8 through 23. On page 2 of the Answer, the examiner states that
appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 14 through 19 and 21 are persuasive and that
claims 14 through 19 are allowable and that claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. We note, however, that the examiner maintains a rejection of claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, the claims remaining before us
on appeal are claims 1 through 5, 8 through 13, 19, 20, 22, and 23.
Appellant's invention relates to an engine having an intercooler bypass for
preventing air from flowing through the intercooler when an idle state for the engine is
detected. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007