Appeal 2006-3268
Application 10/479,696
From the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of
argued claims 13, 21, and 26, and non-argued claims 14-19, 23-24, and
27-30 over Hofmann.
CLAIM 22
Appellant argues that since claim 22 depends from claim 21, claim 22
is not anticipated for the same reasons presented above that claim 21 is not
anticipated (Br. 8). Moreover, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
met his burden of showing that Hofmann’s device inherently contains a
“control unit” (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that typically sensors and valve actuators are
connected to an electronic control unit (ECU) to receive signals from the
sensors (Answer 10). The Examiner finds that it is inherent that Hofmann
also has an ECU (i.e., control unit) to monitor the pressure changes and to
control the valves in response to the pressure changes (Answer 10).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 22 is anticipated by Hofmann.
Hofmann expressly states that his device has “[a] control device 44
for controlling the reducing agent throughput in the reducing agent
line 6 . . .” (Hofmann, col. 4, ll. 50-52). Hence, Hofmann’s “control device
44” is construed as corresponding to Appellant’s claimed “control unit.”
Additionally, we find that Hofmann inherently must have a “control
unit” for the device to be able to function. To achieve Hofmann’s goal of
maintaining a constant pressure drop across metering valve 16 (Hofmann,
col. 5, ll. 15-17), a control unit would be necessary to monitor pressures and
adjust control pressure valve 50 accordingly.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013