IN RE EPPLEY, Patent Appeal No. 2985.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1932
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 2985.
• Parties: In re EPPLEY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

57 F.2d 384 (1932)

In re EPPLEY.

Patent Appeal No. 2985.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

April 4, 1932.

William J. Jacobi and Herbert J. Jacobi, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.

The appellant filed his application in the United States Patent Office on July 7, 1926, for a patent upon certain improvements in a steam power plant. As a result of the action of the tribunals of that office, claim No. 10 of that application was rejected and is now here on appeal. Said claim is as follows:

"10. The method of generating and utilizing an expansive vapor which consists in heating a non-inflammable, non-volatile fluid by circulating the same through a heating zone, passing the heated fluid through a heat exchanging zone, simultaneously circulating a vaporizing liquid through the heat exchanger zone whereby heat is transferred from the fluid to the liquid and the liquid is vaporized, utilizing the vapor and condensing the used vapor, heating the condensation and returning the heated condensation to the heat exchanging zone."

The claim was rejected on reference to Emmet, 1,167,158, of January 4, 1916.

Appellant's claimed invention consists of a method for heating a fluid only vaporizable at very high temperatures, circulating this heated fluid through a heat exchanging chamber where it comes in conductive contact with a more easily vaporizable substance, utilizing the vapor thus created to operate a turbine and to heat another more volatile liquid, and chambers for condensing the used vapors produced by the successive vaporizations and means to conduct the successive condensates, preheated, back to the respective heat exchanging zones.

The rejected claim reads directly upon the reference Emmet with the exception of one element which will later be referred to. Emmet shows a device which heats a fluid volatilizable only at very high temperatures, circulates this heated fluid through a heat exchanging chamber, circulates an easily volatilizable liquid through this heat exchanging chamber, where it becomes vaporized, operates a turbine, and returns the preheated condensate. It is true, Emmet adds certain mechanisms to his combination and performs additional functions, as, for example, the operation of a turbine...