Ex Parte Kirkconnell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2018

12483319 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/483,319 06/12/2009
18510 7590 05/08/2018
Docket Clerk-Raytheon/MWM
P.O.Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carl S. Kirkconnell
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.
07W217 (RAYNOl-71217) 9026
EXAMINER
MENGESHA,WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2018 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL S. KIRKCONNELL, MICHAEL C. BARR, and
LOWELL A. BELLIS
Appeal2017-007563
Application 12/483,319
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, 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--4, 6-10, and 12-22. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest is the assignee of this application, Raytheon
Company." (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-007563
Application 12/483,319
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Appellants, their disclosure "relates generally to the
field of cryocoolers and, more specifically, to the construction and
arrangement of a linear cryocooler." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of removing heat due to compression of a
working gas from a linear cryocooler, the cryocooler including
a sealed housing, a displacer including a displacer piston and a
displacer cylinder, and a compressor all arranged within the
housing, the compressor having a compressor piston that is
movable within a compression chamber, the method
compnsmg:
removing heat due to the compression of the working gas
from the compression chamber into the housing through a port
in the compression chamber by: allowing passage of the
working gas from the compression chamber into an area
adjacent to the housing by thermal convection prior to the
working gas entering the displacer piston;
removing heat due to the compression of the working gas
from the linear cryocooler directly through the housing; and
removing heat through a gas port in a regenerator,
wherein the regenerator is operatively connected to the
displacer cylinder and movable with the displacer piston, and
the gas port is configured to allow gas transport between the
sealed housing and an inlet of the displacer piston.
Barrash
O'Baid
Park
Kirkconnell
References2
US 6,347,524 Bl
US 2005/0120721 Al
US 2005/0166602 Al
US 7 ,062,922 B 1
Feb. 19,2002
June 9, 2005
Aug. 4, 2005
June 20, 2006
2 Our quotations to these references will omit, where applicable, bolding
and/ or italicizing of reference numerals.
2
Appeal2017-007563
Application 12/483,319
Rejections3
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7-10, 12-14, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Baid and Park. (Final Action 4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O'Baid, Park, and Kirkconnell. (Final Action 9.)
The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O'Baid, Park, and Barrash. (Final Action 13.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest
of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2--4, 6, 8-10, and 12-14, and 16-22)
depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 1
recites a "method" involving a "cryocooler," independent claim 7 recites a
"cryocooler," and independent claim 15 recites a "system" comprising a
"cryocooler." (Id.)
The Examiner determines that the cryocooler recited in the
independent claims on appeal would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of O'Baid and Park. (See Final Action 4--7, 9-15.) In the
Examiner's proposed combination, a cryocooler disclosed by O'Baid is
modified to implement a heat exchanger 53 taught by Park to "improve the
heat transferring efficiency of the system." (Id. at 6, 11.)
O'Baid discloses a cryocooler comprising a "sealed housing," a
"displacer cylinder assembly," and a "regenerator unit" mounted in the
displacer cylinder assembly. (O'Baid, i-fi-138, 50.) Park discloses that its
3 The Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 8-10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a), (b) (see Final Action 2--4) are withdrawn (see Advisory Action, 2).
3
Appeal2017-007563
Application 12/483,319
heat exchanger 53 has "a second hole 74 communicating with [a]
regenerator 58." (Park i-f 30.) Thus, O'Baid's modified cryocooler would
include a heat exchanger 53 having a second hole 74 which communicates
with a regenerator mounted within a displacer cylinder assembly.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 require the cryocooler to include a
"gas port" that is "configured to allow gas transport between [a] sealed
housing and an inlet of [a] displacer piston." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that, in O'Baid's modified cryocooler, the second
hole 74 in the heat exchanger 53 would constitute a gas port configured in
this manner. (See Final Action 6.)
Independent claim 1 further requires the gas port to be "in" the
regenerator. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 7 and 15
require the regenerator to "includ[e]" the gas port. (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) With "regards to [this] limitation," the Examiner stresses that the
second hole 74 in Park's heat exchanger 53 "communicate[s] with the
regenerator (58) to direct the fluid (e.g., helium gas) from the heat exchanger
area (53) into the regenerator to remove heat from the helium gas inside
regenerator." (Answer 4--5; see also Final Action 6-7.)
We are persuaded by the Appellants' position that the Examiner does
not establish sufficiently that the prior art shows or suggests a cryocooler
having the regenerator gas port required by the independent claims. (See
Appeal Br. 14--16; see also Reply Br. 2-9.) As discussed above, Park's
second hole 74 is part of the heat exchanger 53, not a regenerator. And the
Examiner does not explain, and we do not see, how a gas port (i.e., the
second hole 7 4) communicating with a regenerator renders it ineludibly part
of the regenerator structure.
4
Appeal2017-007563
Application 12/483,319
The Examiner also finds that Park's second hole 74 "extends all the
way into" the regenerator 58. (Final Action 7 .) However, as is shown in the
annotated drawing used to support this finding (see id.), the second hole 74
may extend to, but it does not extend into, the regenerator 58. And the
Examiner offers us no findings as to why it would have been obvious to
elongate or otherwise alter this flow passage so that, in O'Baid's modified
cryocooler, the second hole 74 extends into the regenerator.
The Examiner further finds that "it is well known in the art for
cryocooler regenerators to have some sort of port to transfer the fluid into
the generator." (Final Action 11; see also Answer 4.) But, the Examiner
does not address adequately why it would have been obvious for such a
well-known gas port to be "configured to allow gas transport between the
sealed housing and an inlet of the displacer piston" as required by
independent claims 1, 7, and 15.
As such, on the record before us, the Examiner does not establish
sufficiently that the cryocooler required by the independent claims on appeal
would have been obvious over 0 'Baid and Park. The Examiner's findings
and determinations with respect to the additional prior art references and the
dependent claims on appeal do not compensate for this shortcoming. (See
Final Action 7-14.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10,
12-14, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Baid
and Park; we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Baid, Park, and Kirkconnell; and
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Baid, Park, and Barrash.
5
Appeal2017-007563
Application 12/483,319
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-10,
and 12-22.
REVERSED
6