Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
Carroll teaches that ambient temperature is used to modify the
acceleration characteristics of the gas turbine control.
Further, Appellant argues on page 11 of the brief that there
is no motivation to combine Lauw with Carroll.
The Examiner asserts on page 5 of the answer that Carroll
teaches in Column 9, lines 11 through 14 and Column 3, lines
10 through 14, that the turbine control is responsive to
ambient temperature and load. Further, the Examiner asserts
that Lauw provides motivation to combine with Carroll as Lauw
states that the generator control can be used with gas
turbines.
First, we consider the rejection of claims 10 through 12
and 18 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Carroll and Lauw. As pointed out by our reviewing court,
we must first determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name
of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and limitations appearing in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007