Appeal 2006-3268
Application 10/479,696
Since Hofmann discloses a “control unit” as recited in claim 22, we
affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claim 22 over Hofmann.
CLAIM 25
Appellant argues that Hofmann’s metering device 16 is not “mounted
on an exhaust gas pipe” as recited in claim 25 (Br. 9). We are unpersuaded
by such an argument.
Hofmann clearly demonstrates in Figure 1 that metering valve 16 is
“mounted on” exhaust duct 38 via atomizer 36. Appellant’s claim 25 does
not require a direct mounting of the metering valve of the metering device to
the exhaust pipe. Therefore, any number of additional components (i.e.,
Hofmann’s mixing chamber 4 and atomizer 36) may be interposed between
Hofmann’s metering valve 16 and the exhaust duct 38 and still satisfy the
“mounted on an exhaust gas pipe” feature of Appellant’s claim 25.
Since Hofmann discloses mounting a metering device on an exhaust
pipe, we affirm the § 102(e) rejection of argued claim 25 over Hofmann.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 20 only under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st ¶, as
failing to satisfy the enablement requirement. No prior art rejection was
ever made of claim 20. However, it appears that claim 20 is anticipated by
Hofmann under § 102(e). Hofmann uses pneumatic controls via gas line 18
to regulate pressure control valve 50 and the pressure in metering device 16
(col. 3, ll. 24-30; col. 4, ll. 60-68; col. 5, ll. 1-27).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013