Appeal No. 1999-0316
Application 08/329,124
Morissette’s heat recovery core is stationary at all times, it
is not apparent how or why it would have been suggestive of
any particular rotational speed for Hajicek’s rotary exchanger
wheel.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 12 as being unpatentable over
Hajicek in view of Morissette.
The defrosting method recited in claim 13 differs from
the one recited in claim 12 in that it requires the step of
stopping rotation of the exchanger wheel such that it is able
to be defrosted by the exhaust air. For the reasons explained
above, Morissette would not have suggested stopping Hajicek’s
rotary exchanger wheel during a defrosting operation.
Although Noda’s total enthalpy heat exchanger 28 “stops”
during a defrosting mode, the exchanger which is defrosted,
aeration heat exchanger 32, does not “stop.” Here again, it
is not apparent how or why the stoppage of one exchanger to
defrost a different functioning exchanger would have been
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007