Appeal 2007-2815
Application 10/498,809
a comfort cooling mode (id. at 4). The Examiner cites Figure 7 as meeting
the limitation requiring the system to be capable of partially or fully using
coolant circulated from the vehicle drive system as a heat sink in a comfort
cooling mode (id.).
As stated in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability. . . . After evidence or
argument is submitted by the applicant in response,
patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a
preponderance of evidence with due consideration to
persuasiveness of argument.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We agree with the Examiner that Burk discloses all of the limitations
in claim 29. Specifically, Burk discloses a “an air conditioning system
which is designed for an air conditioning operating mode and at least one
other operating mode in the form of at least one of a heat pump operating
mode and a reheat operating mode” (Burk [0003]).
Burk’s system includes “a refrigerant cycle with a compressor 2” (id.
at [0039]), a “4 way valve 19” corresponding to the flow reversing device
recited in claim 29 (id. at [0051]), a “supply air/refrigerant heat exchanger
4” corresponding to the recited interior heat exchanger (id.), a “first
expansion element 7 upstream of the supply air/refrigerant heat exchanger
4” (id.), an “internal heat exchanger 25” (id.), a “cooling air/refrigerant heat
exchanger 6” corresponding to the recited exterior heat exchanger (id. at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013