Ex Parte Brasz et al - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2006-0349                                                            Page 3              
             Application No. 10/293,727                                                                          


                                                       OPINION                                                   
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the           
             appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions     
             articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the        
             following determinations.                                                                           
                   With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 10-13, 21 and 22 as being unpatentable over        
             Amir in view of Hanna, the appellants have elected to argue all of the claims together as a single  
             group.  Therefore, in accordance with 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the    
             representative claim to decide the appeal of this rejection, with claims 10-13, 21 and 22 standing  
             or falling therewith.                                                                               
                   Amir discloses an organic Rankine cycle wherein a pump P is used to circulate liquid          
             organic fluid, such as Freon, to a boiler 24 where waste heat is absorbed by the refrigerant to     
             vaporize the refrigerant, with the vaporized organic fluid passing first through a plurality of     
             nozzles (nozzle box 58 and nozzles 64) and then through a turbine 28, with the resulting cooled     
             vapor then passing through a condenser 38 for condensing the vapor to a liquid.  The appellants     
             do not appear to contest the examiner’s determination that Amir discloses all of the limitations of 
             claim 1 with the exception of the refrigerant being R-245fa.                                        
                   The examiner relies on Hanna as evidence that R-245fa was known in the art at the time        
             of appellants’ invention as a refrigerant for use in organic Rankine cycles.  In particular, Hanna  
             teaches:                                                                                            
                          The organic working fluid is preferably either a halocarbon                            
                          refrigerant or a naturally-occurring hydrocarbon.  Examples of the                     
                          former include R-245fa, while examples of the latter include some                      
                          of the alkanes, such as isopentane.  Other known working fluids                        
                          and refrigerants, despite exhibiting attractive thermodynamic                          
                          properties, are precluded for other reasons.  For example, R-11 is                     
                          one of a class of refrigerants now banned in most of the world for                     
                          environmental reasons [col. 3, ll. 42-50].                                             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007