Appeal 2007-2815
Application 10/498,809
4 “to cool the supply air for the purpose of drying” (id.). Given these
disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that this mode can be considered a
“comfort cooling mode,” as recited in claim 29. We therefore further agree
with the Examiner that Burk meets the limitation that the system
components be interconnected “such that . . . coolant circulated from the
vehicle drive system can . . . partially or fully be used as . . . a heat sink in
. . . a comfort cooling mode.”
Figure 8 of Burk shows a “heating mode” in which the refrigerant
cycle is turned off and exhaust gas from the engine is used to heat the engine
coolant via exhaust gas/coolant heat exchanger 16, and the heated coolant
provides heat to the heater 11 (Burk [0055] and [0049]). Thus, as the
Examiner points out (Answer 5), any heat in the ambient air used for
combustion in the engine will contribute to the heat generated by the
combustion process, and will be transferred from the exhaust gas/coolant
heat exchanger 16 to the coolant and heater 11. Because the refrigerant
cycle components of Burk’s system are configured such that ambient air is a
partial heat source during vehicle heating, we agree with the Examiner that
Burk’s system meets the limitation in claim 29 that the components be
interconnected “such that ambient air . . . can . . . partially or fully be used as
a heat source . . . in a heat pump mode.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Burk discloses all of the
structural and functional limitations present in claim 29. The Examiner has
therefore established a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appellants argue that Burk’s system suffers from the same
disadvantages as similar prior art vehicle air conditioning systems (Br. 5-6).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013