Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
(column 2, line 38), the valve that controls the flow of
refrigerant into the motor is designated merely as a “pulsed
solenoid valve” (column 2, line 2).
The examiner has recognized that “[t]he reference does
not use the language expanded flow in reference to the flow of
liquid refrigerant” (Answer, page 3, emphasis added).
However, it is his view that one of ordinary skill in the art
nevertheless would have known that the “pulsed solenoid valve
24" actually must be an expansion valve, for if the
refrigerant did not expand at that point it could not cool the
motor (Answer, page 4). We are not persuaded by this
conclusion, which is not based on any evidence and which flies
in the face of very definitive statements to the contrary
which appear in the text of the reference.
Since neither of the two secondary references provide any
teaching that would alleviate this shortcoming in Heinrichs,
it is our opinion that the teachings of the references relied
upon in the rejection fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 1. We
therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it
follows, of claims 2-4, which depend therefrom.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007