Appeal 2007-1538
Application 10/396,244
ANALYSIS
First Issue.
Appellant states, on page 7 of the Reply Brief, that claim 1 recites “wherein
the operation of said turbine is supplemented by motor action thereon.” Appellant
asserts, on page 8 of the Reply Brief, that when this limitation is interpreted in light
of the Specification, “it is clear that supplementation means combining motor and
pressure action.” It is apparent from, page 9 of the Reply Brief, that Appellant is
referring to the turbine being driven by air pressure as “pressure action.” The
Examiner states that the motor action of the turbine being independent of the claim
is not recited in the claim. (Answer 7). Further, the Examiner states “Yeh clearly
meets the claimed limitation of the motor turbine operation being supplemented by
the motor action thereon and in particular by running the turbine to refill the air
tanks or by assisting the turbine to provide peak power during acceleration.”
(Answer 7.)
We concur with the Examiner. Claim 1 recites an apparatus as “comprising”
elements; as such, the claim is open ended. Claim 1 also recites a pressure means
for operating a turbine to charge the electrical storage means. Claim 1 does not
recite that this is the only operation of the turbine. Claim 1 further recites that
operation of the turbine is supplemented by motor action thereon. Claim 1 does
not recite that a “pressure operation” is supplemented by the motor or that the
turbine is supplemented by the motor to charge the battery.
As discussed in our findings of fact, Yeh teaches a system where there is a
turbine operated by three forces; the motor, compressed air and motion transmitted
through the drive shaft. Fact 4. Thus, the system of Yeh discloses the claimed
feature that operation of the turbine is supplemented by motor action thereon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013