Ex Parte Colberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

12162869 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/162,869 08/06/2008
31554 7590 08/30/2018
CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP
445 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
SUITE420
MELVILLE, NY 11747
Carsten Colberg
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.
1716-6 PCTUS
(9A-105-252)
CONFIRMATION NO.
5660
EXAMINER
COMINGS, DANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
docket@cdfslaw.com
bpuchaczewska@cdfslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARSTEN COLBERG and TORGE PFAFFEROTT
Appeal2017-010365
Application 12/162,869
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, LEE L. STEPINA, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-11. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief indicates that Airbus Deutschland GMBH is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010365
Application 12/162,869
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cooling system. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphases added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An aircraft cooling system for cooling food on board an
aircraft, comprising:
a chiller device;
a first cooling circuit adapted to feed cooling energy
generated by the chiller device to at least one cooling station,
wherein a first refrigerant circulating in the first cooling circuit
is a two-phase, liquid gas, refrigerant, wherein the chiller device
comprises a second cooling circuit formed separately from the
first cooling circuit and is thermally coupled to the first cooling
circuit via a first heat exchanger, wherein a second refrigerant
circulating in the second cooling circuit is a two-phase, liquid-
gas, refrigerant;
at least one throttle valve;
at least one evaporation device associated with the at least
one cooling station, the at least one evaporation device arranged
serially with the at least one throttle valve; and
a first delivery device for circulating the first refrigerant in
the first cooling circuit, wherein the first refrigerant flowing into
the first delivery device is in the liquid state,
wherein the first delivery device is arranged serially with
the at least one throttle valve and the at least one cooling station,
wherein the first delivery device circulates the first
refrigerant in its liquid state to each of the at least one throttle
valve solely through one or more duct lines,
wherein the at least one throttle valve regulates a pressure
of the first refrigerant upstream of the at least one cooling station
and regulates an evaporation temperature of the first refrigerant
in the at least one evaporation device converting the first
refrigerant from the liquid to gaseous state when cooling energy
is delivered to the at least one cooling station, and
wherein the first refrigerant emerging from the at least one
evaporation device returns to the liquid state again through
appropriate pressure and temperature control in the first cooling
circuit.
2
Appeal2017-010365
Application 12/162,869
Appeal Br. 16-17 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thomas
Memory
Simadiris
US 5,743,102 Apr. 28, 1998
US 2004/0261449 Al Dec. 30, 2004
US 6,880,351 B2 Apr. 19, 2005
REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Simadiris and Thomas. 2
(II) Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Simadiris, Thomas, and Memory.
OPINION
Rejection(!); Simadiris and Thomas
The Examiner finds that Simadiris discloses most of the elements
required by claim 1, including a first cooling circuit 32 that contains a
refrigerant. Final Act. 3. With regard to the requirement in claim 1 that the
refrigerant inside the first cooling circuit be a two-phase, liquid-gas
refrigerant, the Examiner states, "(it is taught in col. 2, lines 1-5 and col. 6,
lines 5-7 that it is 'preferable' that the refrigerant remain in it[ s] liquid state
2 The heading for the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9--11 does not list
claim 11, but the body of the rejection addresses this claim. See Final Act.
3, 9. Additionally, claim 4 has been cancelled. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims
App.).
3
Appeal2017-010365
Application 12/162,869
throughout the entire process, the phase changes of the fluid are not
negatived, only stated to be not preferred)." Id. As for the evaporation
device recited in claim 1, the Examiner relies on galley plenums 22 ( which
include heat exchangers 26) of Simadiris for this element, stating:
regarding these heat exchangers [22/26] being "evaporation
devices", it will be recognized in light of Simadiris' teaching of
the possibility of a phase change in this refrigerant in col. 2, lines
1-5 and col. 6, lines 5-7 that the point at which the refrigerant is
caused to absorb heat is the point at which there is the possibility
of at least a portion of the refrigerant evaporating.
Id. at 4.
Appellants contend that Simadiris intends to use only liquid
refrigerant, and the statement in Simadiris that the refrigerant "preferably"
be liquid means that the refrigerant may become a gas at isolated locations,
but not that the system in Simadiris is adapted to use refrigerant in its
gaseous state. Appeal Br. 6-8. Thus, according to Appellants, Simadiris
fails to disclose an evaporating device as recited in claim 1. Id. at 8.
In response, the Examiner finds that the refrigerant disclosed by
Simadiris is capable of existing as a gas and as a liquid, and, therefore,
qualifies as a two-phase, liquid gas, refrigerant as recited in claim 1. Ans.
10-11. The Examiner also finds that, depending upon the amount of heat
provided to heat exchangers 22/26, the system in Simadiris is capable of
vaporizing the refrigerant, thus meeting the requirement for an "evaporation
device" in claim 1. Id. at 15-16.
Although we appreciate the Examiner's position that the refrigerant
used by the system in Simadiris may be vaporized (given the application of a
sufficient amount of heat) we do not agree that heat exchangers 22/26 of
Simadiris qualify as an "evaporation device" as recited in claim 1. The
4
Appeal2017-010365
Application 12/162,869
disclosure in Simadiris that the intermediate working fluid is "preferably" in
a liquid state throughout the entire process in Simadiris does not adequately
support a finding that heat exchangers 22/26 are capable of evaporating the
refrigerant. Additionally, in the context of the entire system disclosed by
Simadiris, we see no indication that heat exchangers 22/26 are configured to
perform an evaporation function. In other words, claim 1 recites a system
including "at least one evaporation device [ that converts] the first refrigerant
from the liquid to gaseous state when cooling energy is delivered to the at
least one cooling station." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). This language
defines the evaporation device's function within the claimed system. Even
assuming arguendo that heat exchangers 22/26 were capable of causing
refrigerant evaporation in a scenario not disclosed by Simadiris, 3 a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider heat exchangers 22/26, as
implemented in the system disclosed by Simadiris, to be evaporation devices
because, as a component of the system in Simadiris, they are not disclosed as
performing an evaporation function. Accordingly, a preponderance of the
evidence does not support the finding that heat exchangers 22/26 of
Simadiris meet the requirement for "an evaporation device."
The Examiner's reliance on Thomas to teach details of the connection
between the recited first delivery device and at least one throttle valve does
3 The Examiner discusses US 2006/026607 5 to Itsuki to support a finding
that it is possible to control an evaporation temperature by changing a degree
of throttling an expansion valve. Final Act. 6--7. However, the valve
disposed directly upstream of heat exchangers 22/26 in Simadiris, namely,
proportional flow valve 28, is not disclosed as an expansion valve. See
Simadiris, 4:59--67. Accordingly, the arrangement and process described by
Itsuki are not the arrangement of components and the process performed in
the system disclosed by Simadiris.
5
Appeal2017-010365
Application 12/162,869
not remedy this deficiency. See Final Act. 5---6. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Simadiris and Thomas.
Like claim 1, independent claim 11 recites an evaporation device that
converts a first refrigerant from a liquid state to a gaseous state (Appeal Br.
19 (Claims App.)), and, in rejecting claim 11, the Examiner again relies on
Simadiris to teach this element (see Final Act. 9). Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Simadiris and Thomas.
Rejection (II); Simadiris, Thomas, and Memory
The Examiner's use of the teachings of Memory does not remedy the
deficiency discussed above regarding Rejection (I). See Final Act. 9--10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as
unpatentable over Simadiris, Thomas, and Memory.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-11 is reversed.
REVERSED
6