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