Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
Thus, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellant’s
claims 12, 15 and 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view
of Enomoto and Whalen, Momose or Patry. Consequently, we reverse
that rejection.
Rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Noda in view of Enomoto and Obara
Obara discloses a vehicle air conditioner (page 1). The
examiner relies (answer, page 7) upon Obara’s second water
valve (13) which controls the flow rate of hot water into a
heater core (12) (page 5). The examiner states that “[t]he
examiner has looked but has not found the control of compressor
inlet pressure using valve systems such as disclosed by
Appellant” (answer, page 17). We therefore reverse the rejection
of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of
Enomoto and Obara.
Rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Noda in view of Enomoto and Suzuki
Suzuki discloses a vehicle heating and cooling system
(¶ 0001). The examiner relies (answer, page 7) upon Suzuki’s
valves 45 for bypass around radiator 42 (¶ 0012). Claims 18
and 19 require a valve system for bypass around a condenser. The
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007