Appeal 2007-1538
Application 10/396,244
With respect to claim 8, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 8 based upon Yeh and Tsatsis is in error. Appellant states “[c]laim 8…
distinguishes by virtue of its dependence on amended claim 8 [sic, 7]. Although
the Compressor system including the saturator and combustor is disclosed by
Tsatsis, it is not obvious that the prior art system of Tsatsis would work with a
motorized turbine.” (Br. 10). Appellant further argues, on page 10 of the Reply
Brief, that “[i]n claim 8 there is a structural difference, which is provided by the
motorized turbine which is not present in Yeh or in Tsatsis.”
ISSUES
Appellant’s contentions present three issues for us.
The first issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Yeh discloses a system where the operation of the turbine is
supplemented by motor action thereon as claimed.
The second issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Yeh and Kataoka teaches
providing an alternate source of electric power, including emergency power for
household operation as claimed.
The third issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Yeh and Tsatsis teaches using a
compressor system including the saturator and combustor as claimed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Yeh teaches a hybrid flywheel and compressed fluid propulsion
system for a vehicle. Abstract.
2. Yeh teaches that the turbine receives compressed air from one of
two tanks. Col. 3, ll. 30-43, col. 4, ll. 23-26.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013