Ex Parte Brasz et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2006-0349                                                            Page 4              
             Application No. 10/293,727                                                                          


                   According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art     
             at the time appellants’ invention was made to use R-245fa as the working fluid in Amir’s system     
             for the purpose of achieving the appropriate work output due to the special characteristics of that 
             working fluid (answer, p. 4).  Additionally, the examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would 
             have been motivated to use a refrigerant such as R-245fa because it is more environmentally         
             friendly, even if its use in the Amir system may result in a reduction in efficiency (answer, p. 9).
                   Hanna’s identification of R-245fa as a suitable working fluid because of its recognized       
             attractive thermodynamic properties, and relative environmental friendliness, establishes a         
             reasonable basis to support the examiner’s conclusion that its use in a Rankine-cycle power plant   
             of the type taught by Amir would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.  As         
             evidenced by the discussion of refrigerants by Hanna noted above, refrigerants are selected not     
             solely on the basis of attractive thermodynamic properties or efficiency, but also on the basis of  
             whether they are objectionable or banned for environmental reasons.                                 
                   The appellants’ brief, at pages 4 and 5, provides argument that the Amir turbine concept      
             is not compatible with R-245fa because it requires the diameter of the axial first stage rotor to be
             larger than the inlet diameter of the second stage radial inflow rotor, thereby limiting efficient  
             turbine operation to pressure ratios less than those required in typical organic Rankine-cycle      
             applications when using this fluid.  The appellants, however, have not supported this assertion     
             with evidence or a complete technical explanation as to why this is necessarily the case.  An       
             attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.  In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,   
             1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).  Moreover, the appellants have not offered any                 
             comparison between the efficiency attainable using the disclosed Freon in the Amir system and       
             that attainable using R-245fa in the Amir system in place of the Freon or asserted that any         
             resulting decrease in efficiency is sufficiently great as to outweigh the social pressures for      
             improving the environment (see reply brief, p. 2).                                                  









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

Last modified: November 3, 2007