Ex Parte Gerber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13350902 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/350,902 01/16/2012
86245 7590 09/30/2016
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/NORTEK
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manfred Gerber
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.
5991.044US1 4987
EXAMINER
MARTIN, ELIZABETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
USPTO@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANFRED GERBER and CAN WEN RONG
Appeal2014-007823
Application 13/350,902
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-7, 13-16, and 31. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Venmar CES, Inc."
(Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal2014-007823
Application 13/350,902
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "a heat pump system for low
temperature operation." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A heat pump system for conditioning air in a
space, the system comprising:
a supply air channel configured to receive air and
discharge supply air into the space, wherein the supply air
channel has a supply air inlet and supply air outlet;
a regeneration air channel configured to receive
regeneration air from the space and discharge exhaust air, the
regeneration air channel and the supply air channel separated by
a partition, wherein the regeneration air channel has a
regeneration air inlet and a regeneration air outlet;
a regeneration air heat exchanger positioned in the
regeneration air channel, the regeneration air heat exchanger is
configured to remove heat from the regeneration air during a
heating cycle, the regeneration air heat exchanger discharging
exhaust air; and
at least one recirculation damper positioned within the
partition, wherein the at least one recirculation damper is
configured to be opened during a defrost cycle to provide a
recirculation loop of regeneration air that recirculates through a
defrost airflow path that includes at least a portion of a pre-
processing segment of the supply air channel and at least a
portion of a downstream segment of the regeneration air
channel, wherein the recirculation loop of exhaust air removes
frost from the regeneration air heat exchanger during the defrost
cycle.
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 20-22 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-007823
Application 13/350,902
Dick
Maeda
Hag lid
References
us 5,337,574
US 6,199,392 Bl
US 7,231,967 B2
Rejections
Aug. 16, 1994
Mar. 13, 2001
June 19, 2007
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Maeda and Dick. (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 16, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Maeda, Dick, and Haglid. (Id. at 8.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires "at least one recirculation damper ...
configured to be opened during a defrost cycle to provide a recirculation
loop of regeneration air" that "removes frost from the regeneration air heat
exchanger during the defrost cycle." (Claims App.) The Examiner
determines that Dick discloses a damper structure capable of providing such
a recirculation loop. (See Final Action 3.) We are persuaded by the
Appellants' arguments that this determination by the Examiner relies upon
findings that are not sufficiently supported by Dick's disclosure. (See
Appeal Br. 7-13; see also Reply Br. 2--4)
The Examiner finds that Dick discloses recirculating dampers 85
configured to open during a "defrost and one hundred percent re-circulating
heating mode." (Final Action 3.) Dick does disclose a full-recirculating
heating mode wherein dampers 85 are indeed open. (See Dick, col. 12,
lines 3-28, Fig. 3.) However, as noted by the Appellants, Dick's "one-
3
Appeal2014-007823
Application 13/350,902
hundred percent recirculating mode" is "a heating mode of operation, but
not a defrost mode of operation." (Appeal Br. 10.)
That being said, Dick does discloses a defrost-logic circuit 173 that
senses "when [an] exhaust coil 15 starts to accumulate frost" and "initiates a
defrost cycle." (Dick, col. 19, lines 27-31.) And Dick indicates that such
defrosting logic is required when the system is operating in the "one hundred
percent re-circulating heating mode." (Id. at col. 19, lines 34--35.)
However, the Examiner does not explain how or why Dick teaches that
dampers 85 are opened, and/or remain open, during the initiated defrost
cycle. As noted by the Appellants, when dampers 85 are open, "fresh air is
drawn through the open damper 85, and forced through the coil 15 back to
atmosphere." (Appeal Br. 10.) As such, it would seem that Dick's
dampers 85 would close during a defrost cycle so as to preclude fresh air
(which would be cold during the winter when heating is required) from
engaging coil 15. Insofar as warm return air is routed to coil 15 for defrost
purposes, as noted by the Appellants, "it is being passed in a straight line
path to the exhaust coil 15, but not in a recirculation loop." (Appeal Br. 13.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeda and Dick.
The Examiner's further findings with respect to the dependent claims
and the additional prior art reference (see Final Action 5-9) do not
compensate for the above-discussed shortcoming in the rejection of
independent claim 1. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 2-7, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maeda and Dick; and the Examiner's rejection of claims 15, 16, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeda, Dick, and Haglid.
4
Appeal2014-007823
Application 13/350,902
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 13-16, and 31.
REVERSED
5