Appeal No. 2004-1456 Page 7
Application No. 09/624,151
on page 2 that the east, west, earth and aft surfaces, which are usually not effective as
primary radiating surfaces due to high relative solar loading, can be effectively used as
radiating surfaces using the heat pump system of appellants’ invention. One of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood from that disclosure that appellants contemplated
using the solar loaded surfaces as radiating surfaces. It follows that the examiner’s
rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 likewise cannot be sustained on
these bases. In light of the above, we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 24-37 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner’s assessment on page 7 of the answer that, if the heat pump
recited in claim 35 is considered to encompass the evaporator, compressor, radiator-
condenser and expansion valve, then the separate recitation of the radiator-condenser
appears to constitute a double recitation, is inapposite. Neither claim 35, including the
recitations in claim 24 from which it depends, nor appellants’ specification defines the
heat pump as including the radiator-compressor. Claim 24, which recites the
evaporator, compressor and radiator-condenser as part of a heat dissipating system,
not a heat pump, makes no mention of a heat pump. Furthermore, as defined in
appellants’ specification (page 4), the “heat pump 21 comprises an evaporator 22, a
compressor 23, and an expansion valve 24 which are coupled in a closed-loop manner
to the radiator-condenser 26 in the manner shown in Fig. 2.” We read this disclosure as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007