Appeal No. 2002-0064
Application No. 09/084,042
shaped to facilitate heat transfer between regenerator material
and fluid and the amount of pressure drop experienced by the gas
as it flows through the regenerator. In this regard, given that
Pauletta’s heat exchanger reasonably appears to be constructed
with a manifold that keeps the flow of incoming gases separated
from the counterflow of outgoing gases, it is questionable
whether Pauletta’s device is capable of functioning in any
meaningful sense to allow a cycling fluid to liberate heat to the
material of the flow passages as it flows through the regenerator
in one direction and then to pick up heat from the material of
the flow passages as the fluid flows back through the regenerator
in the opposite direction as described in the paragraph spanning
pages 9-10 of appellant’s specification. Accordingly, we do not
believe one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the heat
exchanger of Pauletta to be a “regenerator” as called for in
appealed claim 1 when that term is interpreted in light of
appellant’s specification. While we appreciate that the heat
exchange device of Pauletta appears to have all the structure
recited in the body of claim 1, the examiner’s position (answer,
page 5) that the device of Pauletta can be used in all the same
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007