Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
Regarding claim 2 the appellant argues that in Noda’s figure
8, the evaporator is downstream of the engine (brief, page 17).
Noda does not have a figure 8. The evaporator (6) in figure 1 is
upstream of the engine.
With respect to claim 11 the appellant argues that the
references fail to disclose a means for reducing the pressure of
the refrigerant fluid between the condenser and the evaporator in
the heat pump loop (brief, page 18). Such a means is Noda’s
expansion valve (5).
The appellant does not provide a substantive separate
argument as to claims 10, 13 and 14 (brief, page 18).
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto.
Accordingly, we affirm that rejection.
Rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Noda in view of Enomoto and Echigoya
Echigoya discloses a vehicle heat exchange system having an
accumulator (66) at the inlet of a compressor (62), and teaches
that the accumulator separates the cooling medium into a liquid
coolant and a gas coolant, and supplies only gas coolant to the
compressor (col. 3, lines 64-67).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007