Appeal No. 2004-1456 Page 8
Application No. 09/624,151
defining the heat pump as comprising only the evaporator, compressor and expansion
valve, with the heat pump being coupled in a closed-loop manner to the radiator-
condenser. Moreover, as illustrated in appellants’ Figure 2, the radiator-condenser is
clearly not part of the heat pump 21 (note the dotted line denoted by the reference
numeral 21).
Nevertheless, we shall sustain the indefiniteness rejection as to claims 35-37,
inasmuch as appellants have conceded on page 11 of their brief that the rejection of
claims 35-37 as being indefinite because “the heat pump” lacks antecedent basis in the
claims, is appropriate and that these claims are deserving of correction. For the
reasons which follow, we shall not, however, sustain the rejection of claims 24-34.
The examiner’s criticism of the terminology “heat out” in claim 26 is without merit,
as this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the heat exchange field to mean
heat transferred from the radiator-condenser. Likewise, while the term “smooth” in
claim 27 is a relative term, we agree with appellants (brief, page 12) that one of ordinary
skill in the field of heat exchangers would understand what is meant by “smooth walled
tubing.” As for the examiner’s criticism that it is not clear what structures correspond to
the “radiator-condenser” in claims 24-37, it appears clear to us from appellants’
specification that the radiator-condenser 26 is a heat exchange structure in which the
fluid medium is condensed and the heat dissipated thereby is radiated out from said
heat exchange structure. With regard to the limitation in claim 31 that the compressor
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007