Appeal No. 2004-0462
Application 09/915,861
liquid hydrogen tank and thereby reduces the thermal radiation
reaching the tank and provides a substantial reduction in the
evaporation rate inside the tank.
In support of the rejection of claims 1 through 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner urges that Lake discloses an
electric vehicle having a compressor (76) driven by an electric
motor, a fan (58) or (94) which is inherently driven by an
electric motor, and a battery pack (224) for driving the HVAC
system therein. The examiner observes that Lake does not teach
or suggest a fuel cell for powering the HVAC system. To account
for this difference, the examiner looks to Peschka, contending
that this patent teaches a cooling unit (23) which is powered by
a fuel cell, and concluding that it would have been obvious to
“substitute, for the battery pack 224 of Lake et al, a fuel cell
for powering the refrigeration system, in view of Peschka, for
the purpose of providing a reliable, long-lasting source of
power” (final rejection, page 2).
After having reviewed both Lake and Peschka, we must agree
with appellants arguments in their brief and reply brief that
there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive in Peschka or Lake
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007