Appeal No. 2004-1456 Page 3
Application No. 09/624,151
Claims 29, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Camaret.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 17 and 19) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
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.
Claim 24, the sole independent claim before us on appeal, reads as follows:
24. In a spacecraft having a plurality of surfaces, including
at least one radiating surface and at least one solar loaded
surface, a heat dissipating system for dissipating heat from a
spacecraft payload comprising:
an evaporator which receives a fluid medium heated
by said payload, and evaporates said medium producing an
evaporated fluid medium at a first operating temperature,
a compressor which receives the evaporated fluid
medium and compresses the evaporated fluid medium
raising the temperature of the evaporated fluid medium to a
second operating temperature which is greater than the
temperature of the at least one solar loaded surface; and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007