Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
the generator to adjust an output of the gas turbine in
response to the load demand signal and ambient temperature.”
This scope is also shown in the following limitations of
claims 16 and 17: “a fuel control device for controlling an
amount to be supplied to the combustor in response to a load
demand signal” and “controlling a rotational speed of the
generator and gas turbine on the one axis in response to an
ambient temperature and load demand signal.” The scope of
claims 14 through 15 and 24 through 33 includes these
limitations as all of these claims ultimately depend upon
either claim 13, 16 or 17.
On page 8 of the brief, Appellant asserts that the
arguments applied to the rejection of claim 10 also apply to
the rejection of claims 13, 16 and 17. Further, with respect
to claim 13, Appellant asserts that Geary’s control teaching
utilizing ambient air temperature is different then the
claimed control.
On page 4 of the final office action, dated September 5,
1996, the Examiner asserts that the combination of Carroll and
Lauw teaches the control of the turbine as a function of
temperature. Further, the Examiner asserts that Geary teaches
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007