Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
ISSUES
Appellants contend that Bailey fails to teach check valves that prevent
backflow, as set forth in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10). Appellants further contend
Bailey fails to teach inhibiting all backflow when the boost pressure is higher than
exhaust pressure, as set forth in claim 16 (Appeal Br. 11). Appellants further
contend that neither Bailey nor Sumser teaches or suggests check valves to prevent
backflow, as set forth in claim 11 (Appeal Br. 15). Appellants further contend that
Faletti fails to show a Y-pipe, as recited in claim 14 (Reply Br. 6) and Faletti fails
to cure the deficiencies of the combination of Bailey and Sumser (Appeal Br. 15;
Reply Br. 6).
The Examiner determined that Appellants’ invention is simply mounting two
check valves on EGR conduits and Bailey clearly meets that concept (Answer 7).
The Examiner found that Appellants’ check valves can only prevent the backflow
in the EGR path, not in other paths or in the main conduit, which is exactly the
same as the check valves in Bailey (Answer 7).
The issues before us are whether Appellants have shown that Bailey fails to
teach check valves to prevent backflow as recited in independent claims 1 and 16,
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Bailey and Sumser renders obvious the subject matter of claims 10-13 and 15, and
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti renders obvious the subject matter of claims 14 and 20.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013