Appeal 2006-1849
Application 10/387,139
Appellants argue lack of motivation to modify the air cycle machines
in Christians’ integrated environmental control system to include two
turbines as taught by Hipsky (Br. 6). Appellants argue that there must be
“some need in Christians that would cause one of ordinary skill to modify
Christians to use the two turbines of Hipsky” (Br. 6). Based on the
Examiner’s motivation statement in the rejection (Answer 3), Appellants
argue that the Examiner must establish that Christians needs a colder final
temperature or excess water removal (Br. 6).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s argument is flawed in the
determination that icing “will occur in Christians if the final temperature is
the same as Hipsky” (Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants contend that “there is
no condenser icing problem in Christians, and . . . the Examiner’s stated
problem [i.e., condenser icing] is conjecture and nowhere supported in the
references” (Br. 6).
Appellants argue that Christians already provides a solution to the
icing problem, that is, using bypass control valve 152 to provide heated air
to melt any ice (Br. 6-7). Regarding the Examiner’s finding that icing “will
occur” in the condenser, Appellants argue neither Christians nor Hipsky
provides the turbine exit temperatures or any of the numerous operating
parameters such that there is no way to determine that icing will occur in
Christians’ condenser (Br. 7).
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner is incorrect in his
determination that Hipsky’s two turbine environmental control system may
be applied to the “multiple cycle/one heat exchanger [environmental control]
system of Christians” (Br. 7). Appellants argue that for the combination of
Christians with Hipsky to be proper, there must be some need or problem in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007