Appeal 2007-0571 Application 10/277,004 The Examiner rejected claims 10-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey and Sumser. With respect to claim 10, which depends from claim 1, Appellants argue that Sumser fails to cure the deficiency of Bailey (Appeal Br. 14). Finding no deficiency in Bailey, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejected claim 10 based on the combined teachings of Bailey and Sumser. Appellants further argue that neither Bailey nor Sumser teach or suggest a first check valve to prevent backflow from entering the first divided exhaust manifold and a second check valve to prevent backflow from entering a second divided exhaust manifold, as set forth in claim 11 (Appeal Br. 15). As explained above with respect to claim 1, Bailey discloses check valves 64 and 66 that prevent backflow from one exhaust manifold from entering another exhaust manifold. The fact that backflow from other areas of the system can enter the exhaust manifolds does not negate the function of the check valves in Bailey. Similar to claim 1, claim 11 does not require that the check valves prevent all backflow to the exhaust manifolds. As such, Appellants have failed to show how the Examiner erred in finding that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the combined teachings of Bailey and Sumser. Further, Bailey’s check valves 64 and 66 prevent backflow from the intake manifold and from a first or second exhaust manifold from entering the other exhaust manifold. As such, the subject matter of claims 12 and 13 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the combined teachings of Bailey and Sumser. Appellants do not provide arguments for 12Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013