Appeal No. 2006-1959 Page 2
Application No. 10/293,711
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an organic Rankine cycle system and methods and
apparatus for using such Rankine cycle system (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Amir US 4,458,493 Jul. 10, 1984
Brasz US 5,266,002 Nov. 30, 1993
Hay US 6,393,840 B1 May 28, 2002 (Mar. 1, 2000)
Hanna US 6,598,397 B2 Jul. 29, 2003 (Aug. 10, 2001)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amir
in view of Hanna.
Claims 6-8, 12 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Amir in view of Hanna and Hay.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Amir in view of Hanna and Brasz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed August 25,
2005) and reply brief (filed November 29, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013