Appeal 2006-1849
Application 10/387,139
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellants
and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we refer to the Brief and
Reply Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition
thereof.
OPINION
Appellants do not argue the claims separately. Rather, Appellants
broadly argue the combination of Christians with Hipsky. Accordingly, we
choose claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, as a representative
claim on which to render our decision.
§ 103(a) REJECTION OVER CHRISTIANS IN VIEW HIPSKY
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under § 103(a) over Christians in view
of Hipsky (Answer 3). The Examiner found that Christians teaches
substantially all of claim 1, except “using two turbines with the second
[turbine] receiving the expanded air from the first turbine” (Answer 3).
However, the Examiner found that Hipsky teaches “this feature to be old
[i.e., sending the conditioned air of a first turbine to a second turbine] in the
air cycle art” (Answer 3). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious based on the teaching of Hipsky to modify Christians’ integrated
environmental control system to use two turbines with the second turbine
receiving expanded air from the first “to achieve a colder temperature than is
attainable using one turbine, and improving the control of the output
temperature by controlling the amount of air which enters the second turbine
and to permit removal of water from a cooled stream prior to final cooling”
(Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007