Appeal No. 2006-0349 Page 2
Application No. 10/293,727
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an organic Rankine cycle system and methods and
apparatus for using such Rankine cycle system (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Amir US 4,458,493 Jul. 10, 1984
Brasz US 5,266,002 Nov. 30, 1993
Hay US 6,393,840 B1 May 28, 2002 (Mar. 1, 2000)
Hanna US 6,598,397 B2 Jul. 29, 2003 (Aug. 10, 2001)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 10-13, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Amir in view of Hanna.
Claims 2-4, 18-20 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Amir in view of Hanna and Hay.
Claims 5, 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Amir in view of Hanna and Brasz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed March 8, 2004)
and reply brief (filed July 19, 2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007