Appeal No. 1997-0287
Application 08/263,034
Claims 5, 11, and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Andres and either Swearingen
'689 or Swearingen '768. The Examiner's rejection is as
follows (Paper No. 5, pages 2-3, incorporated by reference
into the Final Rejection, Paper No. 9):
Andres teaches providing a combination of a
turboexpandes [sic, turboexpander] and turbocompressor on
a single shaft. It is noted that this combination per se
is admittedly prior art (see applicants['] specification
pages 1-7). Andes [sic, Andres] utilizes magnetic
bearings for both the compressor and expands [sic,
expander]. Swearington [sic, Swearingen] teaches that
for a turbo expands [sic, expander] or compressor it is
advantageous to utilize fluid bearings that can better
adjust to (automatically compensate) [for] thrust
variations. For at least this reason it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate the fluid bearings of Swearington [sic,
Swearingen] into either the expands [sic, expander] or
compressor of Andres.
Claims 5, 11, and 14-18 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Andres and either
Miura or New. The Examiner's rejection is as follows (Paper
No. 5, page 3, incorporated by reference into the Final
Rejection, Paper No. 9):
As noted above Andres teaches the basic system
except for the specific bearings. Miura and New both
teach using a combination of magnetic and fluid bearings
to take advantage of the unique attributes of each type.
Note that use of redundant systems is a matter of routine
cost/benefit: is the added cost of the back-up system
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007