Appeal Number: 2006-1770
Application Number: 10/271,236
the phrase “air temperature” refers to the temperature of ambient air, air leaving the
compressor, or air in the engine intake manifold. We agree with appellant (Brief,
page 11) that the phrase covers all types of air temperature and is, therefore, broad, not
indefinite. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 10, 19, 20, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
As to the anticipation rejection, appellant contends (Brief, pages 12-13, and Reply
Brief, pages 2-3) that Nakao fails to disclose preventing air from entering the intercooler.
Specifically, appellant indicates that in Figure 1 of Nakao, there is nothing to prevent air
from flowing into the intercooler’s input, and in Figure 4 of Nakao, there is nothing to
prevent air from flowing into the intercooler’s output. Accordingly, appellant concludes
that Nakao does not anticipate claims 1 through 5, 8 through 11, 13, 20, 22, and 23.
The examiner (Answer, page 8) directs our attention to Nakao, column 7, lines
15-23, which states:
Under such a control for the air flow control valve 18 provided to
the bypass channel 17, the intake air introduced into the inlet channel 5 is
supplied through the bypass channel 17 to the combustion chamber 4
without passing through the intercooler 10 on the occasion of the start of
operation and during the idle operation. Accordingly, on the occasion of
the start of operation and during the idle operation, the intake air is not
cooled by the intercooler 10. (Italics added for emphasis.)
The examiner relies on the above-noted passage as proof that Nakao’s engine prevents air
from entering the intercooler, as recited in each of the independent claims.
We agree with the examiner that the text of the Nakao patent appears to
substantiate the examiner’s assertion that Nakao discloses preventing air from passing
through the intercooler. However, as pointed out by appellant, there is no structure
disclosed in Nakao to support the statements relied upon by the examiner. There is
nothing to prevent air from entering intercooler 10 through its input in Figure 1 or
through its output in Figure 4 of Nakao. Accordingly, Nakao fails to satisfy all the
limitations of each independent claim. Consequently, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 22, nor of their dependents, claims 2
through 5, 8 through 10, 13, and 23.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007