Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
Appellants further argue that Bailey’s system allows backflow to travel
between its divided exhaust manifolds, and thus Bailey’s check valves are not
positioned to prevent backflow from one divided exhaust manifold from entering
the other, as set forth in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10). For the same reasons provided
above, we do not see where the language of claim 1 requires that the check valves
prevent all backflow from one divided exhaust manifold to the other. Rather,
claim 1 requires only check valves arranged and constructed to prevent backflow
from one divided exhaust manifold to another. Bailey’s check valves are
positioned so that exhaust from one exhaust manifold can travel only one way from
the exhaust manifold to the EGR system and cannot travel as backflow to the other
exhaust manifold via the Y-pipe. As such, Bailey’s system meets the limitations of
claim 1. Appellants do not provide arguments for separately patentability of
dependent claims 4-7, thus these claims fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants further argue that Bailey fails to teach or suggest that when the
boost pressure is higher than exhaust pressure at one or more of the first divided
exhaust manifold and the second divided exhaust manifold, inhibiting all backflow
from entering the first divided exhaust manifold and the second divided exhaust
manifold, as recited in claim 16 (Appeal Br. 11). Claim 16, unlike claim 1,
requires that the system inhibit “all backflow” from entering the exhaust
manifolds. As we found supra, Bailey’s system is designed specifically to allow
backflow to the exhaust manifolds, and as such, does not anticipate the subject
matter of claim 16, and its dependent claims 17-19.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013