Appeal 2006-1849
Application 10/387,139
first turbine to the dual air cycle machine [i.e., integrated environmental
control system] of Christians . . . to provide an air cycle machine which
efficiently provides air at the desired conditions when the inlet air will be at
different conditions during use (as is the case with both systems which are
disclosed for use in airplanes)” (Answer 4-5).
Appellants counter that in order for the combination of Christians with
Hipsky to be proper, the Examiner must provide proof that Christians’
integrated environmental control system is “inferior” to Hipsky’s
environmental control system (Reply Br. 2). Moreover, Appellants contend
that the Examiner has not established that making modifications to
Christians’ integrated environmental control system would indeed improve
the system (Reply Br. 2).
Appellants further counter that the portion of the Hipsky disclosure
cited by the Examiner (i.e., column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 29) is
directed to using the second turbine for deicing not for providing
“improved” control of an environmental control system (Reply Br. 2).
Based on this contention, Appellants indicate that the Examiner has not
established that Christians’ integrated environmental control system has a
problem with icing such that one would have been motivated to use
Hipsky’s two turbine deicing mechanism (Reply Br. 2, 3). Appellants point
out that Hipsky discloses that icing may be desirable in some situations
(Reply Br. 2).
Finally, Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly bases his
motivation for combining the references on the fact that they “may be” or
“could be” combined (Reply Br. 2). According to Appellants, the mere fact
that Hipsky provides air at a desired temperature and humidity does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007