Appeal No. 2003-0304
Application 09/703,302
Mirville patent, because Mirville does not disclose a gaseous-
fuel breathing rocket engine operating on the combustion of a
gaseous fuel compressed by an oxidizer driven turbine, as in the
present application.
Apparently, given the visual identity of the schematic
representations of Figures 1-8 of the present application and
those of Figures 1-8 of Mirville, the examiner is of the view
that the respective engines represented by those drawing figures
are structurally the same. In the paragraph bridging pages 5-6
of the answer, the examiner makes the following
observations/comments:
The fact that the claimed structure injects a gaseous
fuel (hydrogen) in the duct 10 and liquid oxygen through
injectors 17 does not make it patentable over the structure
taught by Mirville for injecting air in the duct 10 and
liquid hydrogen through injectors 17. A recitation with
respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a
claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations
upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a
prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of
that claimed. Therefore, injecting a gaseous fuel
(hydrogen) instead of air (materials to be worked upon) in
the duct 10 does not impose any structural limitations upon
the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior
art apparatus (Mirville) satisfying the structural
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007