Ex Parte Foster

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13461325 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/461,325 05/01/2012
27049 7590 04/02/2018
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter FW FOSTER
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.
153322 1037
EXAMINER
BRAUCH, CHARLES JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
OfficeAction27049@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PETERF. W. FOSTER
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter F. W. Foster ("Appellant") 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Non-Final Office
Action dated April 1, 2015 ("Non-Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-21. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Rolls Royce, PLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A controller, for use in a power plant having a liquid
cooling system and an air cooling system, comprising:
one or more inputs, configured to receive a signal from at
least one deposit sensor, wherein the signal from the deposit
sensor is indicative of deposits in the liquid cooling system; and
one or more processors, configured to process the signal
received from the deposit sensor to control the air cooling
system.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. A-1).
REJECTION
1. Claims 1-5, 7, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2004/0194497 Al, published Oct.
7, 2004) and Kauffman (US 2004/0060344 Al, published Apr. 1, 2004).
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sasaki, Kauffman, and Williams (US 2010/0068983 Al, published
Mar. 18, 2010).
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sasaki, Kauffman, and Kimura (JP 2009-158349 A, published July 16,
2009).
4. Claims 9, 11, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sasaki, Kauffman, and Kuwano (US
2010/0006256 Al, published Jan. 14, 2010).
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sasaki, Kauffman, Kuwano, and Shimomura (US 6,355,186 Bl, issued
Mar. 12, 2002).
2
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
6. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sasaki, Kauffman, and Raynor (US 2005/0258409 Al,
published Nov. 24, 2005).
7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sasaki, Kauffman, and Griffiths (US 6,584,778 Bl, issued July 1,
2003).
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1- Claims 1-5, 7, 16-18, and 20
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sasaki discloses a controller
(forced cooling control unit 11) for use in a power plant (battery 12) that has
a liquid cooling system and an air cooling system, the controller comprising
one or more inputs configured to receive a signal indicative of deposits in
the liquid cooling system from at least one deposit sensor (motor
temperature detection sensor 2), and one or more processors (CPU 1101)
configured to process the signal from the deposit sensor to control the air
cooling system. Non-Final Act. 2-3 (citing Sasaki i-fi-197, 99, Fig. 6). The
Examiner finds Sasaki does not disclose using a deposit amount instead of
temperature as "the pertinent parameter measured by the sensors." Id. at 3.
The Examiner relies on Kauffman to teach sensor device 10 adapted
to measure fluid level, soot buildup, coolant contamination, temperature, and
combinations thereof, to lengthen fluid sampling intervals. Id. (citing
Kauffman i-f 18). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Sasaki "to provide
the features of claim 1 for the purpose of lengthening of fluid sampling
intervals." Id.
Figure 6 of Sasaki illustrates a cooling system for a driving device of
an electric vehicle. Sasaki i1 96. As shown, the cooling system includes
3
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
driving motor 1, radiator 14, and motor temperature detection sensor 2,
which is operable to detect the temperature of driving motor 1 and output a
corresponding motor temperature detection signal Tm to forced cooling
control unit 11. Sasaki i-fi-1 6, 41, Fig. 6. The cooling system also includes
fresh air temperature detection sensor 15, which is operable to detect the
temperature of fresh air 5 and output a corresponding fresh air temperature
detection signal Ta to forced air control unit 11. Forced cooling control unit
11 operates the motor fan of radiator 14 to generate forced ventilation in
response to receiving motor temperature detection signal Tm and fresh air
temperature detection signal Ta to execute forced cooling control for drive
motor 1. Id. i-fi-141, 48, 49, and 99, Fig. 6. Heat from driving motor 1 is
carried away by a liquid refrigerant, and the heat of the liquid refrigerant is
radiated to fresh air by radiator 14 cooled by the motor fan. Id. i197, Fig. 6.
It is our understanding that the Examiner proposes to modify Sasaki to
incorporate Kauffman's sensor device 10.
Appellant contends that Sasaki and Kauffman fail to disclose or
suggest the limitations of "one or more inputs, configured to receive a signal
from at least one deposit sensor, wherein the signal from the deposit sensor
is indicative of deposits in the liquid cooling system" and "one or more
processors, configured to process the signal received from the deposit sensor
to control the air cooling system" in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant notes
the Examiner's finding that Sasaki "is silent concerning using a deposit
amount" to control an air cooling system of a power plant. Id. at 6. Indeed,
the Examiner does not point out any particular disclosure in Sasaki that
motor temperature detection sensor 2 is a "deposit sensor" or outputs a
signal to forced cooling control unit 11 that "is indicative of deposits in the
4
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
liquid cooling system." Non-Final Act. 3. Accordingly, both of these
findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant also contends that Kauffman merely discloses a soot
buildup sensor 10 having liquid sensors and vapor sensors capable of
providing information on the condition of a fluid (e.g., degradation of the
fluid) that may allow a more conservative approach in terms of fluid
replacement. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends that the sole purpose of the
measurements from soot buildup sensor 10 is to better inform a user of the
condition of the liquid. Id. (citing Kauffman i-fi-124, 28).
Appellant points out that claim 1 requires the signal received from the
deposit sensor to be used to control the air cooling system. Id. In contrast,
Appellant contends, Kauffman does not indicate that a signal or measured
parameters from sensor 10 "is used by any control system to modify a
system property," and, specifically, does not indicate that measurements of
soot buildup of sensor 10 "are then used by a control system at all, much less
in order to adapt a system parameter in order to impact on that soot buildup
(or temperature), such as by processing the signal received from the deposit
sensor for controlling the air cooling system of a power plant," as claimed.
Id. (boldface omitted).
The Examiner responds that Kauffman "teaches a sensor that can
perform a variety of functions including soot buildup, temperature, and
combinations thereof." Ans. 11. The Examiner submits:
The deposit sensor [in Kauffman] is more than a mere transmitter
of information. The deposit sensor in Kauffman provides basic
feedback about the operation of the system that prompts the
taking of action in order to properly maintain the system. This is
much more than mere transmittal of information; this is basic
control systems--using some feedback to adjust the operating
state of a system so the performance is optimized.
5
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
Id. at 11-12. According to the Examiner, "[t]here is no teaching in Sasaki
that additional sensors or parameters could not be added" (id.at 11) and:
[T] he Kauffman sensor can step in and do what the sensor in
Sasaki does, sense temperature of the liquid refrigerant (Tf) and
do even more-it can also measure for soot deposits. Since the
Sasaki reference discloses the necessary processors the signal
received from such a sensor would be possible to be obtained and
then used for control purposes. And as Sasaki discloses,
parameters about the liquid refrigerant can be used to control the
air cooling system providing a suggestion for using a soot deposit
parameter for control purposes.
Id. at 12 (emphasis added). The Examiner reasons, "[t]here is no need to
replace but instead to add based on the teachings of Kauffman." Id.
It is not completely clear from these statements by the Examiner
whether the rejection proposes to modify Sasaki's cooling system shown in
Figure 6 by replacing motor temperature detection sensor 2 with
Kauffman's sensor device 10, or instead by adding Kauffman's sensor
device 10 to Sasaki' s cooling system to result in the modified cooling
system of Sasaki including both motor temperature detection sensor 2 and
sensor device 10. But regardless, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner's proposed combination of Sasaki and Kauffman does not disclose
or suggest either of these modifications.
Appellant explains that Sasaki discloses a control system that is based
on temperature measurements and does not disclose "a control system for
use with a deposit sensor, nor one suitable for such use." Reply Br. 4.
Although Kauffman's sensor device 10 can measure soot buildup, for
example, the Examiner does not point out any disclosure in Kauffman that
establishes sensor device 10 does more than monitor the condition of a fluid,
such as soot buildup in the fluid. As noted by Appellant, even when sensor
6
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
device 10 is used to detect soot buildup in a fluid, "the parameters measured
by soot buildup sensor (10) ... are only displayed to the user." Appeal Br. 6
(boldface omitted). This monitoring provides information about the fluid
condition; however, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in
Kauffman that establishes the monitored information is used as feedback to
control the operation of the system. For example, the monitored information
provided by sensor device 10 may indicate that the condition of the fluid
requires replacement. But the Examiner does not establish with evidence
that sensor device 10 "provides basic feedback about the operation of the
system that prompts the taking of action in order to properly maintain the
system," or that monitoring the condition of a fluid by sensor device 10
amounts to "using some feedback to adjust the operating state of a system so
the performance is optimized." Ans. 11-12. Rather, Kauffman discloses
that sensor device 10 monitors the condition of a fluid in a system, and that
such monitored information may be displayed. The Examiner does not
identify any disclosure in Kauffman that the operation of a system
comprising sensor device 10 is controlled, much less so that its
"performance is optimized," based on the monitored condition of the fluid,
much less based on deposits in a liquid cooling system. Accordingly, the
Examiner's findings with respect to Kauffman are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
As the underlying factual basis for the rejection as set forth by the
Examiner is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the Examiner
has not established an adequate reason with rational underpinnings to
modify Sasaki in view of Kauffman to result in the controller recited in
claim 1. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that
"[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where
7
Appeal 2016-004301
Application 13/461,325
the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand."). Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2-5 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Sasaki and Kauffman.
Claim 7 recites a power plant comprising, "at least one deposit sensor
configured to transmit a signal that is indicative of deposits in the liquid
cooling system" and "control circuitry configured to process a signal
received from the deposit sensor to control the air cooling system." Appeal
Br. (Claims App. Al-A2 (emphases added)). Claim 16 recites a method of
cooling a power plant comprising, "receiving a signal indicative of deposits
in a liquid cooling system of the power plant" and "controlling an air
cooling system of the power plant in dependence upon the received signal."
Id. (Claims App. A3 (emphases added)). For reasons similar to those
discussed for claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and
16, or of claims 17, 18, and 20 depending from claim 16, as unpatentable
over Sasaki and Kauffman.
Rejections 2-7- Claims 6, 8-15, 19, and 21
The Examiner's application of one or more of Williams, Kimura,
Kuwano, Shimomura, Raynor, and Griffiths to reject dependent claims 6, 8-
15, 19, and 21 fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of parent claim 1,
7, or 16. Non-Final Act. 5-10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 6, 8-15, 19, and 21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21.
REVERSED
8