Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
We now consider the rejection of claims 39, 41-45, 50, 52 and 54-56 based on Salter
in view of Abe. The examiner has indicated how the invention of these claims is
deemed to be rendered obvious by the collective teachings of Salter and Abe [answer,
page 7].
Claims 39 and 43
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to modify the references in the manner
proposed by the examiner because placing a generator upwind of the rotor in Salter
would not work as well as the downstream generator of Salter. Appellant also argues
that the examiner’s motivation of improving the generator cooling is not a proper
motivation [brief, pages 25-27]. The examiner responds that appellant’s argument that
an upwind generator would be less efficient is not supported by any evidence. The
examiner also asserts that the location of the generator upstream or downstream of the
airfoils would have no effect on the performance of the generator and that the
modification is an obvious rearranging of parts citing In re Japikse [answer, pages 17-
19]. Appellant responds that the examiner has failed to
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007