Ex Parte Colberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201812162869 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation