Ex Parte Denton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12723660 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/723,660 03/14/2010 Darryl E. Denton 4236-06100 5824
114378 7590 01/03/2017
TR ANF, International Tne
EXAMINER
Conley Rose, P.C. TADESSE, MARTHA
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARRYL E. DENTON
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant, Darryl E. Denton,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, and 21—27.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Trance International Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of charging an HVAC system.
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 27 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of charging an HVAC system, comprising:
providing an HVAC system comprising a heat exchanger;
determining a relationship between a liquid line
temperature of the HVAC system, a suction line pressure of the
HVAC system, and an outdoor ambient temperature;
generating a charging chart based on the determined
relationship, the chart comprising displayed target minimum
liquid line temperature values each selected as a function of at
least one displayed suction line pressure value and at least one
displayed outdoor ambient temperature value;
measuring a section line pressure of the HVAC system;
measuring an outdoor ambient temperature;
visually displaying the displayed suction line pressure
value and a displayed target minimum liquid line temperature
vale associated with the measured suction line pressure and the
measured outdoor ambient temperature; and
adjusting a refrigerant charge of the HVAC system until
the HVAC system operates with at least the displayed target
minimum liquid line temperature value.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Brickner 5,152,152 Oct. 06, 1992
Gong 6,470, 695 B2 Oct. 29, 2002
Temple 6,571,566 B1 June 3, 2003
Renders 6,629,420 B2 Oct. 7, 2003
Mowris 7,500,368 B2 Mar. 10, 2009
2
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 21—24, and 273 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gong, Renders, and Mowris.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gong, Renders, Mowris, and Temple.
3. Claims 13, 16, 18, 25, and 264 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gong, Brickner, and Mowris.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10—12, 21—24, and 27
As Unpatentable Over Gong, Renders, and Mowris
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10-12 as a group. Appeal
Br. 12—14. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2, 5, 6,
8, and 10-12 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues
that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Gong does not inherently disclose
3 Even though the Examiner failed to reference claims 21—24 and 27 in
the heading for this rejection (see Final Act. 2), the Examiner refers to
claims 21—24 and 27 within the body of the rejection (id. at 7—10). We
consider the Examiner’s oversight in the heading to be a typographical error,
and therefore, we list claims 21—24 and 27 as being subject to this ground of
rejection.
4 Even though the Examiner failed to reference claims 25 and 26 in the
heading for this rejection (see Final Act. 10—11), the Examiner refers to
claims 25 and 26 within the body of the rejection (id. at 13). We consider
the Examiner’s oversight in the heading to be a typographical error, and
therefore, we list claims 25 and 26 as being subject to this ground of
rejection.
3
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
“the requirement of visually displaying the displayed suction line pressure
value and the displayed target minimum liquid line temperature value”
because “the calculated or stored values of Gong are concealed within the
microprocessor of Gong rather than visually displayed as required by
independent claim[] 1.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues that, contrary
to the Examiner’s findings, “Renders does not visually display any of the
stored values, such as the target minimum liquid line temperature value as
required by independent claim[] 1” because “Renders teaches storing
minimum and maximum pressure and temperature values in the
microprocessor.” Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner, however, finds that
Mowris, not Gong or Renders, discloses (1) “an apparatus and method for
visual identification, and viewing of [HVAC] data” (Ans. 3), and (2) the
“display of a calculated value of a control system on a display is well known
in the art... . Mowris teaches visually displaying the results the calculation
such as suction line pressure (see the display screen shown in Fig.
10A-11 C).” Ans. 2—3. Appellant does not address the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner and, thus, does not show Examiner error.
Next, Appellant argues that, while Mowris visually displays certain
data, it does not “disclose visually displaying the suction line pressure value
and the target minimum liquid line temperature value associated with the
measured suction line pressure and the measured outdoor ambient
temperature as required by independent claim[] 1.” Appeal Br. 14. The
Examiner, however, finds that Gong and/or Renders, not Mowris, calculate
the specific “suction line pressure” and “target minimum liquid line
temperature” recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-4. As discussed above,
Mowris discloses that the “display of a calculated value of a control system
4
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
on a display is well known in the art... . Mowris teaches visually
displaying the results the calculation such as suction line pressure.” Ans. 2—
3. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have
been obvious to “similarly display calculated data sets of Gong and Renders
for the purpose of alerting the user as to the functioning of the system.”
Ans. 3. Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner and, thus, does not show Examiner error.
For these reasons, the rejection of independent claim 1 is sustained,
and claims 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10-12 fall with claim 1. Because Appellant
presents no arguments with respect to claims 21—24 and 27 beyond those we
found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 17—
19), we also sustain the rejection of claims 21—24 and 27.
The Rejection of Claim 3 As Unpatentable
Over Gong, Renders, Mowris, and Temple
Appellant presents no arguments with respect to dependent claim 3
beyond those we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim
1. See Appeal Br. 15. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is also
sustained.
The Rejection of Claims 13, 16, 18, 25, and 26
As Unpatentable Over Gong, Brickner, and Mowris
Appellant argues claims 13, 16, and 18 as a group. Appeal Br. 15—17.
We select claim 13 as the representative claim, and claims 16 and 18 stand
or fall with claim 13. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, Appellant argues
that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Gong does not inherently disclose
5
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
“the requirement of visually displaying the displayed suction line pressure
value and the displayed target minimum liquid line temperature value”
because “the calculated or stored values of Gong are concealed within the
microprocessor of Gong rather than visually displayed as required by
independent claim 13.” Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner, however, finds that
Mowris, not Gong, discloses (1) “an apparatus and method for visual
identification, and viewing of [HVAC] data” (Ans. 7 (citing to Ans. 3)), and
(2) the “display of a calculated value of a control system on a display is well
known in the art... . Mowris teaches visually displaying the results the
calculation such as suction line pressure (see the display screen shown in
Fig. 10A-11 C).” Ans. 7 (citing to Ans. 2—3). Appellant does not address
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner and, thus, does not show
Examiner error.
As with claim 1, Appellant repeats the argument that, while Mowris
visually displays certain data, it does not “disclose visually displaying the
suction line pressure value and the target minimum liquid line temperature
value associated with the measured suction line pressure and the measured
outdoor ambient temperature as required by independent claims 13.” Appeal
Br. 16. The Examiner, however, finds that Gong and/or Brickner, not
Mowris, calculate the specific “suction line pressure” and “target minimum
liquid line temperature” recited in claim 13. Final Act. 11—12. As discussed
above, Mowris discloses that the “display of a calculated value of a control
system on a display is well known in the art... . Mowris teaches visually
displaying the results the calculation such as suction line pressure.” Ans. 7
(citing to Ans. 2—3). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reasoning
that it would have been obvious to “similarly display calculated data sets of
6
Appeal 2015-000433
Application 12/723,660
Gong and Renders for the purpose of alerting the user as to the functioning
of the system.” Ans. 7 (citing to Ans. 3). Appellant does not address the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner and, thus, does not show Examiner
error.
For these reasons, the rejection of independent claim 13 is sustained,
and claims 16 and 18 fall with claim 13. Because Appellant presents no
arguments with respect to claims 25 and 26 beyond those we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 13 (Appeal Br. 17), we
also sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 26.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 5, 6,
8, 10-13, 16, 18, and 21-27 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7