Ex Parte Benedict

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2019

13738047 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/738,047 01/10/2013 Michael Alexander Benedict
141821 7590 05/15/2019
Dority & Manning, P.A. and Haier US Appliance
Solutions, Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602-1449
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.
262532/GECA-337 5105
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2019 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL ALEXANDER BENEDICT
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 11-17 and 20.
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention "relates generally to a heat
pump system that uses variable magnetization of magneto caloric materials
1 According to Appellant, Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
to control the amount of heat exchange." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 11 is the sole
independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 11 as illustrative
of the appealed claims.
11. A heat pump system, comprising:
a regenerator housing defining an axial direction
extending between a first end and a second end of the regenerator
housing, the regenerator housing further defining a
circumferential direction and a radial direction relative to the
axial direction, the regenerator housing being rotatable about the
axial direction, the regenerator housing comprising a plurality of
chambers directing a heat transfer fluid therethrough along a
fluid path, with each chamber extending longitudinally along the
axial direction between a pair of openings, the plurality of
chambers arranged proximate to each other along the
circumferential direction;
a plurality of stages, each stage comprising magneto
caloric material positioned within one of the plurality of
chambers and extending along the axial direction;
a pair of valves comprising a first valve attached to the first
end of the regenerator housing and a second valve attached to the
second end of the regenerator housing, the first valve and second
valve each comprising a plurality of apertures spaced apart from
each other along the circumferential direction with each aperture
positioned adjacent to one of the pair of openings of one of the
plurality of chambers;
a magnetic element positioned proximate to the
regenerator housing and extending along the axial direction, the
magnetic element being positioned radially inward from the
regenerator housing, the magnetic element creating a magnetic
field, the magnetic element positioned so that a subset of the
plurality of stages are moved in and out of the magnetic field as
the regenerator housing is rotated about the axial direction;
a pair of seals comprising a first seal positioned adjacent
to the first valve and a second seal adjacent to the second valve
such that the regenerator housing and the pair of valves are
rotatable relative to the pair of seals, the first seal and the second
seal each comprising a pair of ports positioned in an opposing
2
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
manner relative to each other and also positioned so that each
port can selectively align with at least one of the pair of openings
of the plurality of chambers as the regenerator housing is rotated
about the axial direction;
an actuator selectively movable linearly along the axial
direction parallel to the fluid path, the actuator being operably
connected to the magnetic element and configured to move the
magnetic element in the axial direction relative to the regenerator
housing so as to control the amount of magneto caloric material
experiencing the magneto caloric effect at the fluid path as said
regenerator housing is rotated about the axial direction; and
a temperature sensor mounted within a refrigerator
chamber and configured to measure a temperature within the
refrigerator chamber away from the regenerator housing and the
actuator, wherein the actuator is configured to move axially
according to the temperature measured at the temperature sensor.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 11-14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0071383 Al, pub.
Mar. 25, 2010) (hereinafter "Zhang"), Nashiki
(US 2009/0236930 Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009), and Morimoto et
al. (US 2012/0285179 Al, pub. Nov. 15, 2012) (hereinafter
"Morimoto");
II. Claim 15 2 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Zhang, Nashiki, Morimoto, and Chang et al.
2 Although the Examiner states that "[c]laims 11-17, 20 (and specifically
claim 15) are rejected," the Examiner addresses only claim 15 's recitations.
Thus, we interpret this rejection as applying only to claim 15. See, e.g.,
Answer 6-7.
3
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
(US 2011/0062821 Al, pub. Mar. 17, 2011) (hereinafter
"Chang");
III. Claims 11-14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Zepp et al. (US 7,863,789 B2, iss.
Jan. 4, 2011) (hereinafter "Zepp"), and Morimoto; and
IV. Claim 15 3 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Zhang, Zepp, Morimoto, and Chang.
ANALYSIS
Re;ection I
As set forth above, independent claim 11 recites, in relevant part,
an actuator selectively movable linearly along the axial
direction parallel to the fluid path, the actuator being operably
connected to the magnetic element and configured to move the
magnetic element in the axial direction relative to the regenerator
housing so as to control the amount of magneto caloric material
experiencing the magneto caloric effect at the fluid path.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 11 ). In support of claim 11 's rejection, the
Examiner determines the following:
Zhang teaches most of the claim limitations[,] but does not ...
teach an actuator operable to move the magnetic element linearly
along the axial direction relative to the regenerator housing (17,
18) .... However, Nashiki teaches that it is known to vary the
magnetic field of cylindrical rotary magnetic systems by tapering
the gap between the rotor and stator[,] and to move the stator and
rotor axially to vary the magnetic field. [Nashiki] para. 486.
Therefore it would have been obvious ... to modify the magnet
3 Although the Examiner states that "[c]laims 11-17, 20 (and specifically
claim 15) are rejected," the Examiner addresses only claim 15 's recitations.
Thus, we interpret this rejection as applying only to claim 15. See, e.g.,
Answer 11-12.
4
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
(12, 16) rotor of Zhang to be tapered and to move the magnet
axially to vary the field strength of the systeml] for the purpose
of providing greater flexibility in operation.
Answer 4 ( emphases added).
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs, because the Examiner's
reason for modifying Zhang with Nashiki "is inapplicable to the cited
references." Appeal Br. 8. Appellant points out that, as explained by the
portion of N ashiki that the Examiner cites above, "movement of the magnet
in Nashiki provides variation in the voltage of a motor, thereby allowing a
greater range of motor torque output." Id. (citing Nashiki ,r 486) (emphasis
omitted). According to Appellant, "[t]here is nothing to suggest that
providing a moveable magnet in Zhang ... would provide any increased
flexibility or greater range of heat output that is similar to the motor torque
output provided in Nashiki." Id. ( emphases omitted). Based on our review
of the record, we agree with Appellant.
Nashiki discloses "an [electric] 8-pole motor that operates with 3-
phase alternating current, and comprises a rotor shaft 111, permanent
magnets 112 and a stator 114." Nashiki ,r 256 (emphasis omitted). Nashiki
further discloses that
the motor having the cylindrical air-gap configuration may be
modified so as to have a slightly tapered air-gap configuration.
In this case, in particular, the stator and the rotor may be axially
moved to vary the length of the air gap, so that the size of the
field magnet can be varied and thus the motor voltage can be
varied. The air gap variability may realize constant output
control.
Nashiki ,r 486 (cited at Answer 4). As discussed in more detail above,
Zhang describes a magnetic refrigeration device. See, e.g., Zhang Title.
5
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
There appear to be innumerable differences in operation, use, and
structure between N ashiki' s motor and Zhang' s magnetic refrigeration
device. Thus, without further explanation by the Examiner, the Examiner
does not provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
sufficient to establish that because N ashiki discloses rotor and stator
movement to vary motor voltage, it would have been obvious to move
Zhang' s magnets 12, 16, relative to annular container 18 that contains
magnetocaloric material 20. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We note, for example, that the Examiner does not
establish that the proposed modification would vary motor voltage.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claim 11 based on Zhang, Nashiki, and Morimoto.
We also do not sustain this rejection of claims 12-14, 17, and 20 that depend
from claim 11.
Re;ection II
Claim 15 depends from claim 11. The Examiner does not rely on
Chang to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in independent claim 11 's
rejection based on Zhang, Nashiki, and Morimoto. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 15, based on Zhang,
Nashiki, Morimoto, and Chang.
Re;ection III
This rejection of independent claim 11 is similar to the rejection
discussed as Rejection I (supra), except the Examiner relies on Zepp, rather
than Nashiki, to disclose the claimed actuator that is movable linearly along
6
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
the axial direction. See, e.g., Answer 9 ("Zhang teaches most of the claim
limitations but does not explicitly teach an actuator operable [as claimed] ...
. However, Zepp teaches that it is known to vary the field magnetic strength
in rotary magnetic systems by linearly actuating magnets axially thereby
providing greater flexibility in speed and torque.").
Zepp, like Nashiki, describes a motor. See, e.g., Zepp Title. There
appear to be innumerable differences in operation, use, and structure
between Zepp's motor and Zhang's magnetic refrigeration device. Thus,
without further explanation by the Examiner, the Examiner does not provide
an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning sufficient to
establish that because Zepp discloses "linearly actuating magnets"
(Answer 9), it would have been obvious to move Zhang's magnets 12, 16,
relative to annular container 18 that contains magnetocaloric material 20.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007).
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claim 11 based on Zhang, Zepp, and Morimoto.
We also do not sustain this rejection of claims 12-14, 17, and 20 that depend
from claim 11.
Reiection IV
As we state above, claim 15 depends from claim 11. The Examiner
does not rely on Chang to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in
independent claim 11 's rejection based, in part, on Zepp. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 15, based on
Zhang, Zepp, Morimoto, and Chang.
7
Appeal2018-006828
Application 13/738,047
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-17 and 20.
REVERSED
8