DANFOSS A/S

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2020

2019005512 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 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.
15/322,698 12/28/2016 William Turner Thornton 67426-045PUS1;PA16013US01 9558
26096 7590 05/01/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FURDGE, LARRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2020 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM TURNER THORNTON,
MOGENS RASMUSSEN, and LIN SUN
____________________

Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, and 12–16.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Danfoss A/S.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner indicates that claims 6–11, 17, and 18 are allowable. Final
Act. 7. Thus, these claims are not subject to this appeal. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A refrigerant system, comprising:
a refrigerant loop including at least a condenser, an
evaporator, and a compressor, the compressor including a
motor in communication with a variable speed drive;
a cooling circuit including a pressure regulator
downstream of a heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger is
mounted to the variable speed drive and the heat exchanger is
configured to absorb heat from the variable speed drive;
a temperature sensor mounted to the variable speed drive,
the temperature sensor configured to produce an output
indicative of the temperature of the variable speed drive;
a controller configured to receive the output from the
temperature sensor, and to command an adjustment of the
pressure regulator based on the output from the temperature
sensor;
wherein the controller commands an adjustment of the
pressure regulator when the output from the temperature sensor
indicates that the temperature of the variable speed drive has
deviated from a target temperature.
EVIDENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rousseau US 6,434,960 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
Onimaru US 2012/0262881 A1 Oct. 18, 2012
Kobayashi3 JP 10 – 160315 June 19, 1998
Montanari EP 2 311 674 A1 Apr. 20, 2011

3 An English translation of Kobayashi was made of record on June 21, 2018.
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Montanari and Onimaru.
II. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Montanari, Onimaru, and Rousseau.
III. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Montanari, Onimaru, and Kobayashi.
OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Montanari and Onimaru
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a temperature sensor
mounted to the variable speed drive, the temperature sensor configured to
produce an output indicative of the temperature of the variable speed drive.”
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). Independent claim 15 similarly recites
“sensing a first temperature of the variable speed drive during operation of
the compressor.” Id. at 9. Appellant argues that it would not have been
obvious to modify the refrigerant system of Montanari based on the
teachings of Onimaru so that the temperature sensor is mounted to the
variable speed drive to sense and output a temperature of the variable speed
drive. See id. at 4–6; Reply Br. 1–4. We agree that a sustainable case of
obviousness has not been established.
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 15 together, the Examiner finds
that Montanari discloses a refrigerant system including, in relevant part,
a motor [7] in communication with a variable speed drive
[implicitly taught at 0023; 0024; fig 1; see also 0009];
. . . .
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

4
a temperature sensor [26] configured to produce an
output indicative of the temperature of the variable speed drive
[0016];
a controller [21] configured to receive the output from
the temperature sensor, and to command an adjustment of the
pressure regulator based on the output from the temperature
sensor [0016–0020].
Final Act. 3 (brackets in original). The Examiner finds that Montanari does
not disclose, inter alia, that “the temperature sensor is mounted to the
variable speed drive.” Id. However, the Examiner finds that “Onimaru
teaches a refrigeration system [fig 1] . . . where a temperature sensor [150] is
mounted to the variable speed drive [0043–0048; fig 1].” Id. (brackets in
original). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to modify the assembly of Montanari to have . . . where the
temperature sensor is mounted to the variable speed drive in
view of the teachings of [Onimaru] where the elements could
have been combined by known methods with no change in their
respective functions, and the combination would have yielded
predictable results i.e. decrease the temperature of the inverter.
Id. at 4.
Here, the Examiner errs by not articulating sufficient reasoning,
supported by rational underpinnings, as to why a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have been prompted to modify the teachings of
Montanari as proposed in the rejection. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (stating that “[r]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006))).
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

5
Montanari discloses “a motor-compressor assembly for a refrigerating
and/or conditioning system of a vehicle and . . . a method for cooling the
electric motor of said motor-compressor assembly.” Montanari ¶ 1. In
particular, Montanari discloses motor-compressor assembly 6 including
temperature sensor 26 located inside casing 15 of electric motor 7. Id. ¶ 16.
Control unit 21, which controls electric motor 7 via an electronic power
control circuit, also controls on/off valve 20 in refrigerating circuit 2 for
cooling electric motor 7 as a function of motor temperature. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16,
24. Montanari also discloses that “control unit 21 is mounted on the casing
15, on the outside thereof, as illustrated in Figure 1, and in such a way that
the power control circuit, and in particular its heat dissipator, is thermally
coupled to the chamber 16.” Id. ¶ 25.
Onimaru discloses a power supply for an electric vehicle including,
inter alia, refrigeration cycle 120, motor 130, inverter integrated charger
140, temperature sensor 150, and controller 180. Onimaru ¶ 30. Refrigerant
flowing through heat exchanger 127 cools switching element 141 of inverter
integrated charger 140. Id. ¶ 43. Temperature sensor 150 detects a
temperature of switching element 141 and outputs it to controller 180, which
compares the detected temperature to a predetermined temperature. Id.
¶¶ 48, 61. If the detected temperature exceeds the predetermined
temperature, controller 180 opens expansion valve 123 in refrigeration cycle
120 to carry out cooling of switching element 141. Id. ¶¶ 62–63.
Based on the above disclosures, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Montanari to have the temperature sensor
mounted on the variable speed drive. Final Act. 4. In this regard, it appears
that the Examiner’s proposed modification would involve moving
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

6
Montanari’s temperature sensor 26 so that it is mounted to control unit 21
instead of being mounted inside casing 15 of electric motor 17. See id.4 The
Examiner posits that “the elements could have been combined by known
methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination
would have yielded predictable results i.e. decrease the temperature of the
inverter.” Id. The Examiner also explains that “one skilled in the art would
reasonably conclude that Montanari contemplates cooling of its electronic
power control circuit i.e. VSD.” Ans. 7. The Examiner also reasons that
“the motor and electronic power control circuit are thermally connected and
one skilled in the art could reasonably conclude that the temperature of the
motor can be used as a proxy for the temperature [of the] electronic power
control circuit.” Id. at 8. Thus, according to the Examiner, “one skilled in
the art would reasonably conclude that the temperature sensor of Montanari
does produce an output indicative of a temperature of its electronic control
circuit.” Id. However, the Examiner’s reasoning does not adequately
explain, and it is not apparent, why Onimaru’s teachings with respect to
controlling variable speed drive cooling based on a measured temperature
would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate Montanari’s
temperature sensor 26 from inside casing 15 of electric motor 7 to control
unit 21. The Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art could
have made such a modification (see Final Act. 4) does not constitute a
sufficient rational evidentiary underpinning explaining why one of ordinary
skill would have been prompted to make such a modification.

4 The Examiner does not appear to propose adding a second temperature
sensor (i.e., in addition to temperature sensor 26) that is mounted to control
unit 21.
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

7
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis. In
making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, “resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in [the] factual basis.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Absent improper hindsight
reconstruction, we fail to see a sufficient reasoned explanation based on
some rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify Montanari as proposed by the Examiner, and a
reason for such modification is not otherwise evident from the record.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a proper case that independent claims 1 and 15 are
unpatentable based on the cited references. On this basis, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, or dependent claims 4, 5, 12,
and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Montanari and Onimaru.

Rejections II and III – Obviousness based on Montanari, Onimaru,
and one of Rousseau and Kobayashi
The rejections of claims 13 and 14, which depend from independent
claim 1, are deficient for the same reasons discussed above in connection
with Rejection I. The Examiner relies on Rousseau and Kobayashi for
teaching additional features, but does not articulate any findings or reasoning
that would cure the aforementioned deficiency in the combination of
Montanari and Onimaru. See Final Act. 5–6. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Montanari, Onimaru, and one of Rousseau and
Kobayashi.
Appeal 2019-005512
Application 15/322,698

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 12,
15, 16
103 Montanari, Onimaru 1, 4, 5, 12,
15, 16
13 103 Montanari, Onimaru,
Rousseau
13
14 103 Montanari, Onimaru,
Kobayashi
14
Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5,
12–16
REVERSED