Appeal No. 2006-1959 Page 6
Application No. 10/293,711
special characteristics of said diffuser” (answer, p. 4). The teaching by Brasz of a diffuser 13 at
the outlet of a compressor would have provided absolutely no suggestion to use such a diffuser
structure as a nozzle at the inlet of the Amir turbine.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 1, 9 and 13 as being unpatentable over Amir in
view of Hanna and claims 6-8, 12 and 18-21 as being unpatentable over Amir in view of Hanna
and Hay are sustained. The rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, 14 and 15 as being unpatentable over
Amir in view of Hanna and Brasz is not sustained. The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013