Appeal No. 2003-0094 Page 10
Application No. 08/995,786
exhaust into a combustion chamber in a machine in which a turbine is driven by hot
gases to rotate a compressor along with another rotating machine. It is true that in the
Hendriks system the rotating machine is a power turbine for generating electricity rather
than a fluid conditioning apparatus, as in Singleton. Nevertheless, we agree with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have learned from Hendriks that
there are advantages for utilizing a fuel cell in the same relationship in other analogous
machines, such as that of Singleton.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 21-23, 25 and 26 as being unpatentable over Singleton in
view of Wolfe is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 24 as being unpatentable over Singleton in view of Wolfe
and Endres is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 21-23, 25 and 26 as being unpatentable over Singleton in
view of Hendriks is sustained.
The rejection of claim 24 as being unpatentable over Singleton in view of
Hendriks and Endres is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007