Ex Parte Andres

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

13162152 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/162,152 06/16/2011
26096 7590 09/24/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael J. Andres
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
67010-414PUS1;
56882US01
6930
EXAMINER
DECKER, PHILLIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. ANDRES
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 22-25. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, "Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is the real
party in interest of the present application." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant's "invention relates to a thermal management system
for use in an aircraft" and "[ m Jore particularly, ... a thermal management
system configured to distribute heating or cooling between a plurality of heat
pump units." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1, 23, and 2 5 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for providing heating and cooling to an aircraft
comprises:
a single compressor for compressing and heating a fluid,
wherein the fluid is a refrigerant and the system is a refrigeration
cycle;
a first zone in said aircraft that requires heating or cooling,
said first zone having a first expansion valve without a condenser
and a first heat exchanger removing heat from or adding heat to
said first zone, said compressed fluid passing through said first
zone and said first expansion valve;
a second zone in said aircraft that requires cooling, said
second zone having a second expansion valve without a
condenser and a second heat exchanger for removing heat from
said second zone, said compressed fluid passing through said
second expansion valve after going through said first expansion
valve and before passing through said second heat exchanger;
and
a first valve that is open for directing hot compressed fluid
from said compressor through said first heat exchanger in said
first zone if said first zone needs heating.
2
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152
Rejections2
Claims 1--4, 7, 10, 11, and 22-25 are rejected under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Petesch (EP 1728657 Al, pub.
Dec. 6, 2006) and Nakamura et al. (US 4,987,747, iss. Jan. 29, 1991)
("Nakamura").
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Petesch, Nakamura, and Finney et al. (US 2011/0005244
Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2011) ("Finney").
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2---8, 10, 11, and 22
The Examiner finds that Petesch discloses an air conditioning system
for an aircraft including "a single compressor for compressing and heating a
fluid, wherein the fluid is a refrigerant and the system is a refrigeration
cycle," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2. The Examiner supports this
finding by citing to Petesch's air conditioning system, which includes
compressor 10. Id. ( citing Petesch, Abstract, ,r,r 13, 24). The Examiner
finds that the refrigeration cycle of Petesch's air conditioning system is
"shown schematically in each of the figures." Id.
The Examiner also finds that Petesch discloses an air conditioning
system having a refrigeration cycle with "a first zone in said aircraft that
2 In the Answer, the Examiner suggests that claim 25 may fail to meet the
written description requirement under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Ans. 23. However, the Examiner's suggestion of a new ground
of a rejection is not itself a rejection of a claim. As such, we do not
understand the Examiner to have rejected claim 25 under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
3
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152
requires heating or cooling, said first zone having a first expansion valve
without a condenser," as recited in claim 1. See id. at 2-3; Ans. 13-14. The
Examiner supports this finding by citing to Petesch's enclosed space 25
having expansion valve 50 without a condenser. See Final Act. 2-3 ( citing
Petesch ,r,r 17-18).
Independent claim 1 recites, "a second zone in said aircraft that
requires cooling, said second zone having a second expansion valve without
a condenser." Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Petesch fails to
disclose the second zone as claimed. Final Act. 3. Although the Examiner
does find that Petesch teaches second expansion valve 55 without a
condenser, the Examiner relies on Nakamura to teach the entirety of the
"second zone" limitation. See id.
The Examiner finds "Nakamura teaches said second zone (9a, Fig. 3)
having a second expansion valve without a condenser (21)." Id. The
Examiner specifically points to indoor unit 9a and its associated heat
exchanger 10, which functions as an evaporator, not a condenser. See
Ans. 13; Nakamura, col. 7, 11. 27-51. Thereafter, the Examiner modifies
Petesch's air conditioning system by adding a second zone, as taught by
Nakamura. See Final Act. 3--4.
The Appellant points out that Nakamura's air conditioning system-
as shown and described in the embodiment in Figure 3 - includes indoor
unit 9b having heat exchanger 10 that acts as a condenser; and as such, is a
condenser. Appeal Br. 4 (citing Nakamura, col. 7, 11. 35-38). In this
embodiment, indoor unit 9b functions in the same manner as indoor unit 9c.
See Nakamura, col. 7, 11. 31-38. The Appellant also points out that "[i]n
order for the indoor unit 9a from Nakamura to provide cooling, the
4
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152
refrigerant must first be condensed and liquefied in either of the indoor
units 9b, 9c." Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Nakamura, col. 7, 11. 31-51).
The Appellant argues that the subject matter of claim 1, as a whole,
would not have been obvious based on the combined teachings of Petesch
and Nakamura as proffered by the Examiner. See id.; Appeal Br. 4--5. The
Appellant asserts:
there is no expectation of success that a [person of ordinary skill
in the art] could remove the indoor unit 9a from a system that
feeds condensed and liquefied refrigerant into the indoor unit 9a
and place it into a system that does not even have a condenser
and still expect the indoor unit 9a to operate in the manner it did
in the Nakamura.
Reply Br. 3; see Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant's position is persuasive.
Nakamura's indoor unit 9a is part of a refrigeration cycle, which
receives condensed refrigeration fluid from indoor units 9b, 9c. We
determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would take the entirety of
Nakamura's refrigeration cycle into consideration when combining the
teachings of Petesch and Nakamura. This is in contrast with the Examiner's
position, which relies on a singular feature of Nakamura's refrigeration cycle
while dismissing the remaining aspects of the refrigeration cycle.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and dependent claims 2--4, 7, 10, 11, and 22, as unpatentable over
Petesch and Nakamura.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, and 8 based on Petesch and
Nakamura in combination with Finney relies on the same reasoning for the
rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 9-10. We fail to understand how the
additional findings and/or reasoning associated with the rejection of
claims 5, 6, and 8 cures the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1 as
5
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152
discussed above. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 5, 6, and 8 as unpatentable over Petesch, Nakamura, and Finney.
Independent claim 23 and dependent claim 24
The Examiner's rejection of claim 23 suffers from a similar error as
discussed above with regard to the rejection of independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 6-7; see also Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 18. For similar reasons as
discussed above we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 23, and dependent claim 24, as unpatentable over Petesch and
Nakamura.
Independent claim 25
The Examiner finds that Petesch fails to teach, but that Nakamura
does teach, "a third zone in said aircraft that requires heating, said third zone
having a third expansion valve without a condenser and a third heat
exchanger in communication with said third zone," as recited in independent
claim 25. Final Act. 8. Here, the Examiner relies on Nakamura's Figure 4
and finds that indoor unit 9a and its expansion valve 21 and heat
exchanger 10 correspond to the claimed third zone, third expansion valve
without a condenser, and third heat exchanger, respectively. Id. ( citing
Nakamura, col. 8, 11. 5-7).
The Appellant points out that heat exchanger 10 of indoor unit 9a, as
shown and described in Figure 4, acts as a condenser, and as such is a
condenser. See Appeal Br. 7-8. Indeed, Nakamura describes "[a] part of the
refrigerant is introduced into the indoor heat exchanger 10 or the indoor unit
9a for room heating through its three portion switching valve 20, carries out
6
Appeal2018-001666
Application 13/162,152
heat exchanging (room heating) to be condensed, thereby being liquefied."
Nakamura, col. 8, 11. 5-10.
The Examiner acknowledges that this finding relies on a position that
Nakamura's heat exchanger 10, when functioning as a condenser, is not a
condenser. See Ans. 18-19. The Examiner suggests that a special definition
of the term "condenser" must be provided to consider a heat exchanger ( e.g.,
Nakamura's heat exchanger 10) to be a condenser. See id.
The Appellant argues that no special definition is required for one of
ordinary skill in the art to understand "that a heat exchanger that 'condensed,
thereby being liquefied' a refrigerant would be a condenser." Reply Br. 5;
see Appeal Br. 7-8. The Appellant's argument is persuasive.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25 as
unpatentable over Petesch and Nakamura.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 11,
and 22-25.
REVERSED
7