Carrier Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2020

2020002455 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/787,539 10/18/2017 Paul Papas 73019US02 (U301751US2) 2982
87059 7590 11/12/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
TRPISOVSKY, JOSEPH F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL PAPAS, PARMESH VERMA,
RICHARD G. LORD, and LARRY D. BURNS
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s March 22, 2019, Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–17,
and 20–24. See Final Act. 1. Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 have been canceled.
Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Carrier Corporation. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an HVAC/R system that is configured to
detect and respond to refrigerant leaks whether or not its main power source
is available. Spec. ¶ 5. Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An HVAC/R system configured to receive power from a main
power source, the HVAC/R system comprising:
an HVAC/R component configured to contain a
refrigerant and allow a refrigerant to flow therethrough;
a detecting mechanism configured to detect a
concentration of the refrigerant within a gas volume outside of
the HVAC/R component;
a blower configured to operate under power from an
auxiliary power source upon detection of the refrigerant above a
predetermined refrigerant level during a main power source
outage, wherein the blower is in fluid communication with the
gas volume;
a return conduit operably coupled to the at least one
HVAC/R component, the return conduit including an opening to
allow airflow therethrough;
a mitigation damper operably coupled to the return conduit
and positioned adjacent to the opening to selectively allow
airflow through the opening upon detection of the refrigerant by
the detecting mechanism;
wherein the mitigation damper blocks the opening upon
detection of the refrigerant below the predetermined refrigerant
level and the mitigation damper opens the opening upon
detection of the refrigerant above the predetermined refrigerant
level.
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539

3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Strathman US 4,367,633 Jan. 11, 1983
Sakakibara US 5,918,475 July 6, 1999
Kawahara US 2005/0103029 A1 May 19, 2005
Fujitaka US 2013/0098576 A1 Apr. 25, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 5–12, 14–17, 20,
21, 23, 24
103 Fujitaka, Sakakibara
7, 22 103 Fujitaka, Sakakibara,
Kawahara
13 103 Fujitaka, Sakakibara,
Strathman
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 5–12, 14–17, 20, 21, 23, 24:
Rejected as Unpatentable over Fujitaka and Sakakibara
Appellant argues the claims subject to this rejection as a group.
Appeal Br. 3–9. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and
decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner relies on Fujitaka to teach all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for the claimed mitigation damper that blocks an opening in a
return conduit “upon detection of the refrigerant below a predetermined
refrigerant level”—i.e., when no refrigerant leak is detected—and “opens the
opening upon detection of the refrigerant above the predetermined
refrigerant level”—i.e., when a refrigerant leak has been detected. Final
Act. 7–8 (citing Fujitaka ¶¶ 58, 63, 91, 112, 122). The Examiner thus turns
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539

4
to Sakakibara to teach the missing limitation. Id. at 8 (citing Sakakibara
4:61–5:2, 6:20–30, Fig. 3). According to the Examiner,
Sakakibara teaches the concept of an air conditioner to
include a return conduit (return conduit, or passage formed in
casing 1 upstream of fan fluidly communicating with openings
2, 3; column 4, line 61 to column 5, line 2) operably coupled to
the at least one HVAC/R component (8) and including an
opening (2, 3) to allow airflow therethrough, a mitigation
damper (5) operably coupled to the return conduit and
positioned adjacent to the opening (3) to selectively allow
airflow through the opening (damper 5 can swing to selectively
open the opening 3 and allow outside air to flow into the air
conditioning unit, step 140, Fig. 3) upon detection of the
refrigerant (step 110; Fig. 3) by the detecting mechanism
(column 6, lines 20–30); wherein the mitigation damper (5)
blocks the opening (3) upon detection of the refrigerant below
the predetermined refrigerant level (opening 3 would be closed
when no leak is detected or when refrigerant sensed by gas
sensor 22 is below the predetermined refrigerant level) and the
mitigation damper (5) opens the opening (3) upon detection of
the refrigerant above the predetermined refrigerant level
(damper 5 can swing to selectively open the opening 3 and
allow outside air to flow into the air conditioning unit, step
140, Fig. 3; column 6, lines 20–30).
Id(Emphasis added). The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined this feature of Sakakibara with Fujitaka “to
allow fresh outside air to enter into the system and dissipate the
concentration of leaked refrigerant from the system.” Id. at 9.
Appellant responds that Sakakibara’s outside air inlet door “is not
described as blocking an opening in a return conduit upon detection of the
refrigerant below the predetermined refrigerant level,” as claim 1 requires.
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant notes that “Sakakibara states that fresh air inlet 3 is
opened when a refrigerant leak is detected, but does not disclose blocking an
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539

5
opening in a return conduit upon detection of the refrigerant below the
predetermined refrigerant level, as recited in pending claim 1.”
In response, the Examiner points to Figure 6 of Sakakibara as
disclosing a mode in which the inside and outside air inlets are closed when
no leak is detected. Ans. 16 (citing Sakakibara, 10:7–17, Fig. 6). According
to the Examiner, “Fig. 6 show[s] inside and outside air inlets closed in step
130 and would remain closed when under a predetermined refrigerant level
in step 140.” Id. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief, and thus does not
dispute the Examiner’s description of Sakakibara’s operation.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sakakibara teaches a mitigation damper that closes the opening upon
detection of the refrigerant below the predetermined refrigerant level. As an
initial matter, we do not construe this limitation as requiring the step of
shutting the mitigation damper to block the return-conduit opening upon the
receipt of a signal from the detecting mechanism that the refrigerant level is
below a predetermined refrigerant level. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and
thus should not be read to require process steps. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C.
v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Instead, this
claim, broadly and reasonably construed, encompasses a system that
operates in a mode in which the opening being blocked depends on there
being no refrigerant leakage detected. Such is the case with Sakakibara.
As depicted in Figure 6 and described by Sakakibara:
When it is determined that the air conditioning apparatus has
been stopped by a signal from the air conditioner switch 30
(step 100) . . . the two introduction inlets 2 and 3 are
respectively closed by the two introduction inlet doors 4 and 5
(step 130). Next, the presence or absence of refrigerant leakage
is determined on a basis of a signal from the gas sensor 22 (step
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539

6
140). Herein, when it is determined that refrigerant has leaked
. . . the outside air introduction inlet door 4 is opened (step
160).
Sakakibara, 8:31–42; see id. Figs. 4, 6. Thus, a skilled artisan would readily
understand that when the system is not operating, the outside air inlet door
blocks the outside air inlet until a leak is detected, at which point the outside
air inlet door opens the outside air inlet.
Finding no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Fujitaka and Shakikibara, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–12, 14–17, 20, 21, 23, 24 on that basis.
Claims 7 and 22: Rejected as
Unpatentable over Fujitaka, Sakakibara, and Kawahara
Appellant relies on the argument above with respect to claim 1, which
we found unpersuasive, to support the patentability of claims 7 and 22.
Appeal Br. 9. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 22 as
unpatentable over Fujitaka, Sakakibara, and Kawahara.
Claim 13: Rejected as Unpatentable over
Fujitaka, Sakakibara, and Strathman
Appellant relies on the argument above with respect to claim 1, which
we found unpersuasive, to support the patentability of claim 13. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 22 as unpatentable over Fujitaka,
Sakakibara, and Strathman.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002455
Application 15/787,539

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–12,
14–17, 20,
21, 23, 24
103 Fujitaka,
Sakakibara
1, 2, 5–12,
14–17, 20,
21, 23, 24

7, 22 103 Fujitaka,
Sakakibara,
Kawahara
7, 22
13 103 Fujitaka,
Sakakibara,
Strathman
13
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–17,
20–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED