Appeal No. 2000-2267
Application No. 08/764,576
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, Appellants’
response to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection asserts a
failure by the Examiner to set forth a prima facie case since
proper motivation for the proposed combination of references has
not been established. In particular, Appellants argue (Brief,
page 15) that Eckert, relied on by the Examiner as providing a
teaching of an exterior air turbine connected to an explosion-
proof generator housing, does not in fact disclose a turbine
driven generator.
After careful review of the Eckert reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Brief. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of Eckert coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., the
fan 8, which the Examiner likens to the claimed air turbine, does
not drive the generator shaft as in the appealed claims but,
rather, is driven by the pulley driven generator shaft to provide
cooling for an engine. Given this deficiency in the disclosure
of Eckert, we fail to see how the skilled artisan would be
motivated to combine it with any of the other applied prior art
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007