Appeal 2006-1849
Application 10/387,139
environmental control system. Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1368. As shown in
Hipsky’s Figure 1, the second turbine (15) is positioned after the condenser
(22) but before the aircraft cabin (shown by air flow 67 which is directed to
the cabin or load). Therefore, according to Hipsky’s disclosure, the second
turbine would have been combined with Christians’ integrated
environmental control system such that it is positioned between the
condenser and the aircraft cabin and is attached to the shaft of one of the air
cycle machines (Hipsky, Figure 1).
As additional support for the combination of Hipsky’s second turbine
with an air cycle machine in Christians’ integrated environmental control
system, we find the Examiner has established that Hipsky’s disclosure
demonstrates it is “commonly known” in the art to use a two turbine
environmental control system to cool an aircraft such that conditioned air
from the first turbine is fed to the second turbine for additional cooling and
treatment. Based on “common knowledge” of a two turbine aircraft
environmental control system as shown by Hipsky, we conclude that it
would have been obvious to modify Christians’ integrated environmental
control system by adding a second turbine to an air cycle machine. Dystar,
464 F.3d at 1368. Additional “suggestion or hint” (i.e., motivation) from the
reference is not required to support the combination because it based on
established “common knowledge and common sense” in the art. Id.
From the foregoing and contrary to Appellants’ arguments, motivation
is implicitly provided by the prior art (i.e., the universal desire to enhance
commercial opportunities by improving a product) under the circumstances
of this appeal. Id. Additionally, the Examiner has established that a two
turbine environmental control system was commonly known in the art such
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007