Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
The appellant argues that if one of ordinary skill in the
art were to combine the teachings of Noda and Enomoto, the
resulting system would be one of those sketched by the appellant
on pages 14 and 16 of the brief (brief pages 13-16). The sketch
on page 14 leaves out Enomoto’s condenser (11) upstream of the
receiver (12). That condenser is comparable to the appellant’s
condenser 36. The sketch on page 16 does not provide Enomoto’s
air conditioning circuit.
The appellant argues that the examiner’s proposed
combination fails to render obvious a three-way valve switching
device that makes it possible to circulate the refrigerant fluid
in either the air-conditioning branch or the heat-pump branch in
such a way as to form a heat-pump loop (brief, pages 15 and 17).
Such a switching device is Enomoto’s electric valves 181 and 182
which can be replaced by a three-way valve (col. 6, lines 1-2).
The appellant argues that unlike the heating circuits of the
appellant and Noda, the heating circuit in Enomoto’s figure 8
does not include an evaporator (brief, page 17). Noda is relied
upon by the examiner for a disclosure of the appellant’s heating
circuit that includes an evaporator (answer, page 5). Moreover,
Enomoto shows an evaporator (15) in the heating circuit in
figure 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007