Appeal No. 2003-0618
Application No. 09/351,218
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In applying Bronicki against independent claims 25 and 28
(see pages 3 and 4 in the answer), the examiner reads the step
and means respectively recited in clause a) of method claim 25
and apparatus claim 28 on Bronicki’s disclosure of direct contact
heat exchanger 222, and the step and means respectively recited
in clause b) of claims 25 and 28 on Bronicki’s disclosure of
evaporative cooler 224. The above passage from the Bronicki
reference, however, fails to support the examiner’s analysis.
More particularly, Bronicki does not fairly teach that at least a
portion of the water droplets introduced into the air flow by the
direct contact heat exchanger 222 evaporates before reaching the
compressor inlet whereby the air is cooled and humidified, or
that at least a major portion of the water droplets introduced
into the air flow by the evaporative cooler 224 does not
evaporate before reaching the compressor inlet whereby the air is
intercooled by evaporation of these droplets during compression
thereof. To the contrary, Bronicki’s disclosure actually
indicates that the water droplets introduced by the direct
contact heat exchanger 222 and the evaporative cooler 224
interact with the air flow in a manner quite different than that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007