Appeal No. 2003-0094 Page 3
Application No. 08/995,786
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellants’ invention is directed to an air cycle machine for generating a
stream of air to cool an enclosure such as a passenger compartment of a vehicle. It is
driven by compressed air from a turbine, and provides cool air without the use of
refrigerants and without directly impacting the performance of the turbine. The
invention adds a fuel cell to the thermodynamic cycle in such a manner that the cooling
function is provided independently of the electrical power generation of the fuel cell.
Claim 21, the sole independent claim, recites the invention in the following manner:
21. An environmental control system comprising:
an air cycle machine including a compressor and a cooling turbine;
a heat exchanger; and
a fuel cell;
the compressor supplying a first stream of compressed air to an oxidant
inlet of the fuel cell and a second stream of compressed air to an inlet of
the cooling turbine during operation of the air cycle machine;
the second stream being cooled by the heat exchanger.
The first of the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is that the subject
matter of claim 21 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007