Appeal No. 2002-0064
Application No. 09/084,042
In rejecting claims 6-12 as being unpatentable over Pauletta
in view of Yaron, the examiner found (answer, page 4) that
Pauletta “discloses all the claimed features of the invention
with the exception of the claimed elements in claims 6-9” and
that Yaron “discloses a gas cycle machine with a displacer, a
coaxial pulse tube refrigerator in combination with a regenerator
foil installed in a cylindrical space for the purpose of making
and operating a coaxial pulse tube refrigerator.” Based on these
teachings, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art in view Yaron to use a
displacer in combination with the heat exchanger of Pauletta
and/or to operate the heat exchanger of Pauletta as a coaxial
pulse tube. The examiner’s motivation for these proposed
modifications is “for the purpose of making and operating [the
device of Pauletta as] a coaxial pulse tube refrigerator as in
Yaron et al” (answer, page 4).
Appellant argues (main brief, page 17) that the examiner
gives no cogent reason why anyone would think to combine the
cited references, and that it makes no sense to do so. We agree.
To modify Pauletta in view of the teachings of Yaron to operate
as a refrigerator, as proposed by the examiner, would run
directly counter to Pauletta’s stated purpose of heating waste
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007