Appeal 2007-1538
Application 10/396,244
(c)(1)(vii), we group claims 2, 3, and 14 through 17 and affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of all of the claims so grouped.
Third issue.
With regard to claim 8, on page 10 of the Brief, Appellant asserts that it is
not obvious that the saturator and combustor disclosed by Tsatsis would work with
a motorized turbine. Further, on page 10 of the Reply Brief, Appellant contends
that claim 8 distinguishes over the combination of Yeh and Tsatsis as the
references do not teach a motorized turbine.
Appellant’s argument directed to the combination of the teachings of Yeh
and Tsatsis have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Yeh
teaches a use of a turbine in a vehicle to charge a battery. Facts 1 and 5. Tsatsis
teaches that it was known to use a saturator and combustor in a vehicle with a
turbine. Facts 8 and 9. We consider the combination of these references to be
nothing more than the combination of known systems, which is obvious as it will
provide predictable results of improving turbine efficiency.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
combination does not teach a motorized turbine as claimed. As discussed supra
with respect to claim 1, we find that Yeh teaches a motorized turbine. Thus, for
the forgoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not 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.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013