Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
separately patentability of dependent claims 15, thus this claim falls with claim 11.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants argue generally that one of skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Bailey and Sumser (Appeal Br. 15). Appellants fail,
however, to provide any arguments or evidence to support this contention. Since
we have determined that the Examiner set forth a prima facie case of obviousness,
the burden is on Appellants to provide some evidence or arguments as to why the
claimed invention would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention. Appellants have failed to provide anything more
than a bald assertion of lack of motivation to combine. We do not find this
persuasive.
Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti. The Examiner (Answer 5) relies on Faletti to
show that it was known in the art to place EGR coolers in a combined EGR path
from two separate EGR paths. Appellants contend Faletti fails to show a Y-pipe,
as recited in claim 14 (Reply Br. 6). Even if we were to accept Appellants’
characterization of Faletti as disclosing a T-junction, instead of a Y-pipe, it is clear
from the art, e.g., Bailey, that Y-pipes were commonly used at the time of the
invention in the internal combustion engine art (Bailey, col. 4, ll. 37-40 and col. 5,
ll. 18-21), and Appellants fail to show why it would not have been obvious to use a
Y-pipe in lieu of Faletti’s T-junction. Appellants further contend that Faletti fails
to cure the deficiencies of the combination of Bailey and Sumser (Appeal Br. 15;
Reply Br. 6). Since we see no deficiencies in the combined teachings of Bailey
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013