Ex Parte Jonsson

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 10, 2019

12742189 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/742, 189 08/31/2010 Ulf Jonsson
69713 7590 04/12/2019
OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP
321 Summer St.
Boston, MA 02210
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.
46401-033US 1 3104
EXAMINER
NAMAY, DANIEL ELLIOT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2019 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):
INFO@ORPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULF JONSSON
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL,AdministrativePatentJudges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ulf Jonsson (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was
held on March 28, 2019.
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Uponor Innovation Ab.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and is
representative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of controlling under surface heating/cooling, the
method comprising
supplying liquid to at least two supply loops in an under
surface heating/cooling system, and
controlling the flow of the liquid on and off such that
during a duty cycle the flow is high and between the duty
cycles the flow is off
whereby
room temperature is controlled by controlling a ratio of
the duty cycle to a control time frame, the ratio being
determined on the basis of the heating demand of the rooms,
and each of the at least two supply loops is controlled such that
a maximum ratio of the duty cycle to the control time frame is
limited to 70%.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simensen (US 6,345, 770 Bl, issued Feb. 12, 2002),
Partington(US 4,420,677,issuedDec. 13, 1983), Gustafsson
(SE 9203705 A, published June 10, 1994), 2 and Neve
(US 2002/0060251 Al, published May 23, 2002).
DISCUSSION
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner found that Simensen
discloses a method of controlling under surface heating/cooling comprising
2 An English language translation of the Abstract of this document was
entered into the electronic record of the present application on April 30,
2014. See PT0-892 Notice ofReferences Cited (Apr. 30, 2014).
2
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
supplying liquid to at least two supply loops and "controlling the flow of the
liquid on and off such that during a duty cycle the flow is high and between
the duty cycles the flow is off." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner found that
Simensen does not disclose
controlling a ratio of the duty cycle to a control time frame, the
ratio being determined on the basis of the heating demand of
the rooms, and each of the at least two supply loops is
controlled such that a maximum ratio of the duty cycle to the
control frame is limited to 70%.
Id. at 3.
The Examiner found that Partington teaches controlling the ratio of a
duty cycle based on a demand for heating, with "the ratio of the duty cycle
to a control time frame being set to a maximum value." Id. ( citing
Partington, Abstract; 1 :64--2:37; 5:66---6:2). The Examiner found that, in
Partington, "[t]he 'on' interval is maximized with the 'off interval being
'only momentary', indicating less than a 100% on cycle." Id. (boldface
omitted) ( citing Partington 5 :66---6:2).
The Examiner then determined it would have been obvious "to
incorporate the duty cycling of Partington ... into the method Simensen ...
for the purpose of improving efficiency over conventional heating systems."
Id. (boldface omitted) ( citing Partington 1 :55-56). The Examiner found that
Partington teaches limiting the duty cycle to less than 100%, but did not fmd
that Partington specifically teaches limiting the duty cycle to 70%. Id.
However, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious "to adjust
the on/off intervals of Partington ... as required for a specific installation,
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges
3
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
involves only routine skill in the art." Id. (boldface omitted) ( citing In re
Aller, 220 F.2d454, 456 (CCPA 1955)).
Appellant points out that Partington' s teachings with respect to duty
cycle are directed to controlling a heater that turns on and off according to
some duty cycle, not to controlling fluid flow using a duty cycle. Appeal
Br. 10. Appellant adds, "Partington does not even disclose the idea of
turning fluid flow on and off, let alone turning it on and off according to
some duty cycle to achieve some function." Id. at 11 (italics omitted). In
fact, Appellant points out,"[ o ]n the contrary, Partington discloses
continuous circulation of fluid." Id. at 12 (italics omitted) ( citing
Partington2:64---66). Appellant challenges the Examiner's articulated reason
for combining S imensen and Partington and submits that the Examiner
apparently "spotted the words 'duty cycle' in Partington and then formulated
a reason, related to efficiency, to modify [Simensen] based on hindsight
reasoning." Id. at 11 (italics omitted).
For the reasons that follow, Appellant's arguments apprise us of error
in the rejection.
Simensen discloses a system for circulating fluid to a plurality of
thermal exchange zones comprising a modular manifold including a plurality
of selectively actuatable fluid control mechanisms, such as zone pumps or
zone valves, for controlling flow of fluid to the zones. See Simensen 2:10-
33; 3:12-32. However, the Examiner does not direct our attention to any
disclosure in Simensen of controlling the valves by controlling a ratio of the
duty cycle to a control time frame.
Partington discloses a hot air heating system in which "heated liquid
is continuously circulated through [a] heat exchanger." Partington2:21-30;
4
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
see also id. 2:65---66; 6:11-16. "As the heated liquid is continuously
circulated through the heat exchanger, natural convection will cause heated
air to continuously flow through the duct system, even when the room
thermostat is not calling for heat and the blower is not operating." Id. 2:26-
30; see also id. 6: 11-16. Thus, it is not necessary to heat the entire duct
system each time a room thermostat calls for heat. Id. 2:30-35.
Partington discloses controlling the duration of the '"on' interval" of
the heating element based on the temperature of the liquid in the system.
Id. 2:1-14; 5:33-36; 5:59---6:2. In particular, if the liquid temperature falls
below a set value, Partington's system energizes the heating element.
Id. 2:2--4; 5 :59---61. As the temperature falls further below the set value,
Partington' s system will increase the duration of the '"on' interval" of the
heating element. Id. 2:9-14; 5:61---63. As the temperature increases toward
the set value, the system will correspondingly decrease the duration of the
'"on' interval" of the heating element. Id. 2 :9-11; 5 :63---65. If the
temperature drops below a temperature considered to be the lower limit of
the normal operating range, Partington' s system sets the '"on' interval" of
the heating element to "its maximum duration, where the 'off interval
would be only momentary." Id. 5:66---6:2.
In short, as Appellant argues, Partington's teachings regarding duty
cycle are directed to controlling the duty cycle of a heating element based on
the temperature of the heating liquid in order to control the temperature of
the liquid, not to controlling the duty cycle of the flow of the liquid. Thus, it
is not apparent, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, why a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted by the teachings
of Partington regarding control of duty cycle of a heating element to modify
5
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
Simensen to control a duty cycle of the flow of fluid into the thermal
exchange zones in the manner in which Partington controls the duty cycle of
the heating element.
We appreciate the Examiner's explanation that both Simensenand
Partington "are directed towards a heat source being used to heat an
enclosure or chamber," and fmd no error in the Examiner's determination
that Simensen and Partington are both analogous to Appellant's invention.
See Ans. 6. We also appreciate the Examiner's point that the difference in
temperature between the heating fluid and the enclosure being heated, and
thus the temperature of the heating fluid itself, drives the transfer of heat,
and, thus, is related to the power output from the heating system.
See Ans. 5. Although the Examiner's explanation might provide rational
underpinnings for modifying Simensen to control the heating of the heating
fluid in the manner taught by Partington in order to control the temperature
of the heating fluid, the Examiner's technical reasoning is insufficient to
provide the necessary rational underpinnings for modifying Simensen to
control a ratio of the duty cycle of the flow of the fluid to a control time
frame as called for in claim 1.
Neve teaches that the optimum duty cycle ("that is, the relation
between the on- or opening time and the period length ( sum of the on- and
off-times)") for a floor heating system controlled by means of on/off valves
"will be in the range from 60 to 80%." Neve ,r 8; see also Appeal Br. 9
( stating that Neve "describes that an optimum duty cycle exists for a
hydronic heating system (e.g., in a range from 60% to 80% )"). However,
the Examiner does not rely on this teaching of Neve in order to establish a
reason why it would have been obvious to modify Simensen to control a
6
Appeal 2017-006728
Application 12/742,189
ratio of the duty cycle of the flow of the fluid to a control time frame as
called for in claim 1. Rather, the Examiner relies on Neve only to rebut
Appellant's assertion of criticality or unexpected results in the 7 0%
maximum duty cycle to control time frame ratio recited in claim 1. 3 See
Final Act. 5 (responding to Appellant's arguments); Ans. 5.
For the above reasons, the Examiner has not established a sustainable
case that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-8,
which depend from claim 1, as unpatentable over Simensen, Partington,
Gustafsson, and Neve.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
3 The Examiner relies on Gustafsson for teachings directed to "delaying
cycles between zones of a floor heating system," and not for any teaching
that would make up for the deficiency in the combination of Simensen and
Partington. Final Act. 4
7