Appeal No. 98-0102
Application 08/030,734
where the identical
apparatus is used, except that a “largely enveloping” heat
absorber is substituted for an “immersed” type heat absorber?
Apparently not, since appellant states on page 25, lines 3 to
6 of his brief, that “the enveloping construction alone,
i.e.[,] when not accompanied by compressor size reduction,
effects substantially no reduction in work consumed, or
reduced temperature difference, relative to Sketch No. 1 [the
“immersed” heat absorber system]”. Thus, one of ordinary
skill would not be able to determine whether or not the method
claimed by the appellant would cover the operation of a
particular system having a “largely enveloping” heat absorber
or heat supplier, because no definite standard is provided for
determining whether the temperature difference is “reduced”,
as claimed.
The problem is illustrated in comparing claim 1 with the
Morrison patent. Morrison discloses a refrigeration system
with a heat absorber (evaporator 1, 2) which “largely
envelops” space 11, and it is evident that there will be an
operating temperature difference between the heat supplier
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007