Ex Parte McAuliffe et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1420                                                                              
                Application 10/992,431                                                                        


                      The separate rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in                    
                light of Jesinger in view of Sishtla is maintained as well for the reasons set                
                forth by the Examiner at pages 3 and 7 of the Answer.  Although we agree                      
                with the Examiner’s views that Jesinger does not explicitly teach the word                    
                diffuser, even within 35 U.S.C. § 103 alone, the use of various throttles and                 
                adjustable valves as set forth in the last sentence of the abstract of Jesinger is            
                sufficient to meet a variable air flow capability of claim 3.  We agree with                  
                the Examiner’s interpretation of Sishtla at the top of page 7 of the Answer                   
                regarding the recognition in the prior art of problems of compressors lacking                 
                flow stabilization for the desire to achieve higher operating efficiencies by                 
                the use of an adjustable diffuser to control the flow rate. Note column 1 of                  
                Sishtla.  Contrary to the view at the bottom of page 2 of the Reply Brief,                    
                Sishtla does convey to the artisan the desirability of either substituting the                
                fixed throttle 95 and/or variable throttle 99 in figure 2 of Sishtla with a                   
                variable diffuser for the advantages noted by the Examiner at the top of page                 
                7 of the Answer and as reflected at least at column 1 of Sishtla.                             
                      Lastly, we turn to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                   
                being obvious over Jesinger in view of Nims.  Again, the Examiner’s initial                   
                view with respect to this rejection at the top of page 4 has been expanded                    
                upon at the bottom of page 7 of the Answer.  We agree with Appellants’                        
                characterization at the bottom of page 8 of the principal Brief that there may                
                be no motivation to modify Jesinger in light of the thrust bearings in Nims.                  
                Yet, Appellants admit that Jesinger does teach the use of an electromagnet                    
                105 that attracts the shaft 33 to limit its axial movement.  Thus, Appellants                 


                                                      6                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013