Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
Like the appellants, Heinrichs wishes to utilize
refrigerant from the closed system to cool the motor, when
necessary. However, as the appellants have strongly argued,
Heinrichs utilizes liquid refrigerant to do so, rather than
the “expanded flow” required by claim 1. Heinrichs makes this
very clear in the specification. In column 1, the following
statement appears in the summary of the invention:
Basically, liquid injection is used to cool the
motor of a motor compressor responsive to the motor
temperature (column 1, lines 39 and 40, emphasis
added).
In going on to describe the preferred embodiments of the
invention, Heinrichs refers only to the flow of “liquid
refrigerant” into the motor for cooling (column 2, lines 24
and 32). The use of refrigerant in the expanded state is
disclosed, however, it is with regard to injecting refrigerant
into the compressor to control its exit gas temperature
(column 2, lines 34-39). Furthermore, both of Heinrichs’
claims recite that the refrigerant which cools the motor is in
the liquid state (column 2, line 56 and column 4, line 4).
Finally, while Heinrichs describes the valve that controls the
flow of refrigerant into the compressor as an expansion valve
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007