Appeal 2007-2815
Application 10/498,809
heat source or a heat sink. Claim 29 does not state that ambient air is the
main heat source.
Appellants argue that “in the Burk system [the named components of
the refrigerant circuit] are not arranged so that both ambient air and coolant
circulated in the vehicle drive system can both be used as a heat source and a
heat sink in a heat pump mode and a comfort cooling mode” (Br. 7). We
are not persuaded by this argument. For the reasons discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that Burk’s Figures 5 to 8 show that the system
meets the functional limitations of claim 29.
Appellants argue that, because the Examiner has improperly ignored
the express language in the last paragraph of claim 29, the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation (Br. 7-9). We are not
persuaded by this argument.
We note that the Examiner has urged that the functional limitations of
claim 29 should be ignored (Answer 11-12). That argument has been
addressed above. However, the Examiner has also explained how Burk’s
Figures 5 to 8 meet the functional limitations of claim 29 (Answer 4-6,
12-17).
Because we agree with the Examiner that Burk discloses all of the
limitations of claim 29, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
that claim. Claim 30 falls with claim 29.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013