10874025 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2009)

Ex Parte Axe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 26, 2009

10874025 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RICHARD JAMES AXE and RICHARD GRANT HUNT Appeal 2009-001576 Application 10/874,025 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Decided:1 May 26, 2009 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2009-1576 Application 10/874,025 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard James Axe et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-13. Claim 3 has been cancelled.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE. Appellants’ claimed invention is an air cycle air conditioning system for conditioning and recirculating cabin air in an aircraft. Spec. 1, para. 0003. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An air cycle air conditioning system for conditioning recirculating air from an enclosure, the system including an enclosure air recirculation loop, a first expansion turbine to which hot pressurized working air is provided, a heat load heat exchanger in which a heat load of the recirculating enclosure air of the recirculation loop is exchanged with cooler working air from the first expansion turbine, a heat exchanger to which a portion of the hot pressurized working air is provided, from upstream of the first expansion turbine, and in which heat is exchanged to the cooler expanded air from the first expansion turbine, the working air from the heat exchanger expanded by the first expansion turbine and the cooled pressurized working air from the heat exchanger being 2 The Status of Claims in Appellants’ Brief incorrectly lists claim 2 as cancelled instead of claim 3. App. Br. 3; Ans. 2. Appeal 2009-1576 Application 10/874,025 3 combined prior to feeding the combined flows to a second expansion turbine, the system including a mixing apparatus in which the recirculating enclosure air from the loop and the cooled combined working air flows from the second expansion turbine are mixed prior to being provided to the enclosure. Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,505,474 B2 to Sauterleute et al. (issued Jan. 14, 2003). The Examiner found Sauterleute discloses an air cycle air conditioning system that includes mixing air 16 from the enclosure (aircraft cabin) with bleed air from outside the aircraft, and returning the mixture to the enclosure. Ans. 6-8. The Examiner concluded Sauterleute anticipates claims 1, 2, and 4-13. Ans. 4-8. Appellants contend that Sauterleute is not a recirculation-type system because air 16 comes from outside the aircraft rather than from the enclosure, and because air 16 is vented outside the aircraft rather than being mixed with the air provided to the enclosure. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-5. The issue before us is have Appellants demonstrated the Examiner erred in finding that Sauterleute discloses a recirculation-type system? Appellants are correct that Sauterleute is not a recirculation-type system. The background and summary sections of Sauterleute’s disclosure imply Sauterleute’s system is not a recirculating system. Sauterleute discloses that in the prior art, air conditioners for airplane cabins cooled and dehumidified bleed air (air bled from the aircraft engine at high pressure and high temperature), which was then supplied to the aircraft cabin. Appeal 2009-1576 Application 10/874,025 4 Sauterleute, col. 1, ll. 13-21. Against this background, Sauterleute discloses an air conditioning system for airplane cabins that conditions the moisture- containing air and that is designed to overcome the disadvantages of the prior art by controlling the moisture of the air conditioned air without losing cooling capacity. Sauterleute, col. 1, ll. 8-11, 51-56. Because Sauterleute’s disclosure of the prior art mentions only bleed air as the source for conditioned air with no mention of recirculation of air from the enclosure (cabin), and Sauterleute does not disclose his system uses recirculated air, this strongly implies Sauterleute’s system uses only bleed air as a source for conditioned air to the cabin and is not a recirculating system. The Examiner found that cooling air 16 comes from the enclosure (cabin), and fan 18 exhausts air to the cabin. Ans. 4-6. Neither finding is correct. Sauterleute does not explicitly disclose air 16 coming from the cabin, nor fan 18 exhausting air 16 to the cabin. Sauterleute, passim. Sauterleute discloses airflow from only second air expansion turbine T2 as going to the cabin. Sauterleute, col. 5, ll. 24-27. Further, Sauterleute’s description of the operation of fan 18 and throttle flap 17 strongly suggests air 16 comes from outside the aircraft rather than from the aircraft’s cabin. Sauterleute discloses that ambient air 16 is used as the cooling medium with flow controlled by fan 18 during ground operations, and with flow controlled by throttle flap 17 during flight operations.3 Sauterleute, col. 4, ll. 46-53. We understand this to mean that during ground operations, fan 18 ensures that air 16 will continue to flow 3 Note that Sauterleute refers to the bleed air taken in flight by prior art systems as “ambient,” consistent with our interpretation of air 16. Sauterleute, col. 1, ll. 26-30. Appeal 2009-1576 Application 10/874,025 5 because there is no airflow around the aircraft, and during flight operations, throttle flap 17 restricts or permits ram air to enter from airflow around the aircraft. In addition, the Examiner’s conclusion is based in part on the finding that air 16 mixes with bleed air 10.4 Ans. 6-7. However, this is not the case. Sauterleute does not explicitly describe air 16 mixing with bleed air 10. Sauterleute, passim. Rather, Sauterleute describes that air 16 is used as a “cooling medium” for the bleed air 10 in heat exchanger 14. Sauterleute, col. 4, ll. 44-48. Typically, an air-to-air heat exchanger (such as heat exchanger 14) functions by passing one airflow by another so that heat, but not air, is transferred between the two airflows. In other words, the two airflows do not mix. If the system operated as the Examiner found, high pressure and temperature bleed air5 that had not passed through the dehumidifying portion of Sauterleute’s device, would mix with air 16 and be passed into the cabin. Providing hot, humid air to the enclosure would seem directly contrary to Sauterleute’s purpose to control the moisture of the air without loss of cooling capacity. Sauterleute, col. 1, ll. 51-56. For these reasons, we conclude that Sauterleute does not recirculate cabin air. Because claims 1, 2, and 4-13, all contain the limitation that the air conditioning system is a recirculating system, and Sauterleute does not 4 Bleed air 10, after being conditioned, enters the cabin from second air expansion turbine T2. Sauterleute, col. 5, ll. 24-27. So if air 16 came from the cabin and mixed with bleed air 10, then Sauterleute’s system would be a recirculating type system; however, as we explain, supra, air 16 does not come from the cabin, nor does it mix with bleed air 10. 5 Bleed air enters at approximately 200 degrees Celsius and 2 bar pressure. Sauterleute, col. 4, ll. 42-43. Appeal 2009-1576 Application 10/874,025 6 disclose this feature, Sauterleute does not anticipate these claims. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference”). We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4-13. REVERSED vsh MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC ONE MARITIME PLAZA FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO OH 43604-1619