Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 12, 15 and 17-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement.
Rejection of claims 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that it is unclear which of the two
evaporators or two condensers in claim 1 are referred to in
claims 2 and 11 (answer, page 4).
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, includes “the
evaporator of the heat-pump loop”. In claim 1, only one heat-
pump loop evaporator is recited, and it is referred to as the
first evaporator. Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, recites
that “the heat-pump loop includes pressure-reducing means for
reducing the pressure of the refrigerant fluid between the
condenser and the evaporator.” It is clear that the condenser
and evaporator are those of the heat-pump loop, and claim 1
refers to them, respectively, as the first condenser and the
first evaporator. Hence, it is clear which evaporator and
condenser in claim 1 are referred to in claims 2 and 11.
The examiner argues that the accumulator in claims 8 and 9
does not exist in elected figure 3 (answer, page 4). That
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007