Appeal No. 1997-0287
Application 08/263,034
Appellants argue (Br15): "Looking to the specific claim
groups, claim 5 further requires a turboexpander as another
rotary device. Turboexpanders are not provided in the prior
art presented. Only Andres et al. discloses a turbine." The
Swearingen patents expressly state that the fluid thrust
balancing system is applicable to turboexpanders. When
Appellants state that "[o]nly Andres et al. discloses a
turbine" (Br15), it is not clear whether Appellants are
admitting or denying that Andres has a turboexpander. Since
the turbine of Andres serves to expand air which is
pressurized by the compressor (abstract), we find that Andres
teaches a turboexpander in combination with a compressor.
Appellants argue (Br16): "Claims 5, 11 and 16
specifically provide for the use of the back side of the
compressor rotor. Andres et al. and New fall short."
Presumably Appellants admit, as they must, that the Swearingen
patents and Miura disclose using the high pressure from the
back side of the compressor rotor. Andres is not relied on
for fluid thrust balancing and so it has never been contended
that it teaches using the high pressure from the back side of
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007