Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223
USPQ at 788.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bailey. Appellants argue that Bailey fails to teach a check valve
that prevents backflow from an intake manifold from entering a divided exhaust
manifold, as recited in claim 1, because Bailey’s regenerator cleaning process
requires backflow from the air intake into the exhaust manifolds. (Appeal Br. 10).
As we found supra, Bailey discloses check valves 64 and 66 that prevent backflow
as claimed. While we agree that Bailey’s system allows backflow to travel from
the air intake into the exhaust manifold in the regenerator cleaning process, that
flow does not negate the function of the check valves in Bailey, which are located
between one of the divided exhaust manifolds and the EGR system for preventing
backflow from the air intake to the exhaust manifold. Claim 1 does not require
that the check valves prevent all backflow to the exhaust manifold. Rather, claim 1
more broadly requires only that the check valves operate to prevent backflow from
an intake manifold from entering a divided exhaust manifold. Bailey’s check
valves clearly perform this function, and thus meet the limitations of claim 1, as
recited.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013