Ex Parte Kuehl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

12612211 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/612,211 11104/2009
173 7590 11/23/2016
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
STEVEN J. KUEHL
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.
US20080443 3959
EXAMINER
RUBY, TRAVIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN J. KUEHL, TUSHAR KULKARNI, and
GUOLIANWU1
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
Technology Center 3700
Before BRANDON J. WARNER, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven J. Kuehl et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Whirlpool
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns "a refrigerator having a main cooling loop and
a secondary cooling loop, the secondary cooling loop being configured to be
in fluid communication with a detachable module," which module may
include "a turbo chill module ... , a fast freeze module, a shock freeze
module, a temperature controlled crisper compartment module," etc. Spec.
i-fi-12, 36. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A refrigerator having an interior and a main cooling
loop, at least a portion of the interior including a freezer section
and at least a portion of the main cooling loop including an
evaporator, said refrigerator comprising:
at least one detachable module comprising at least one
quick connect fitting, said detachable module configured to
removably attach to a surface of the refrigerator; and
a secondary cooling loop comprising at least one quick
connect fitting that corresponds to said at least one detachable
module's said at least one quick connect fitting,
\'I/herein said secondaf'J cooling loop includes a selectively
removable tank that is in thermal communication with at least
one of the evaporator and the freezer section, and
wherein said secondary cooling loop is configured to be in
fluid communication with said at least one detachable module
through said corresponding at least one quick connect fittings.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1-11 and 14--19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rafalovich (US 2008/0141699 Al, pub. June
19, 2008) and Hall (US 4,354,359, iss. Oct. 19, 1982).
2
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
II. Claims 12, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rafalovich, Hall, and Felicetta (US 4,519,216, iss. May
28, 1985).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I - Claims 1-11 and 14-19
Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 7-9 as a group. Appeal Br. 5-11.
We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2, 3, and 7-9 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants separately address
claims 4 and 5 (Appeal Br. 11-12), claim 6 (id. at 12), and claims 10, 11,
and 14--19 (id.), and we address Appellants' arguments in tum.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9
The Examiner finds that Rafalovich discloses a refrigerator (100)
substantially as claimed including, inter alia, a module (540) including at
least one connector that is attached to a surface of the refrigerator, and a
secondary cooling loop including at least one connector corresponding to
that of the module, wherein the secondary cooling loop includes a tank (530)
in thermal communication with at least one of an evaporator (220) and a
freezer section (101) of the refrigerator. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Rafalovich
i-f 26, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner finds that Rafalovich fails to teach that the
module and tank are detachable and removable, but relies on Hall for such a
teaching. Id. at 3 (citing Hall, 2:14--17, 4:6-15, Figs. 1, 3, 6-9). The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Rafalovich's module and tank to be "detachable with
connectors as this would allow for easy replacement of the module or tank
when they malfunction or break" and because constructing a formerly
3
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Id. at 3--4 (citing MPEP § 2144.04(V, C)).
Appellants argue that, in a prior rejection, the Examiner conceded that
Rafalovich' s element 510 corresponds to the claimed tank but, in the Final
Rejection from which this appeal is taken, the Examiner suggests that tank
510 is interchangeable Rafalovich's element 530 ("medium path"). Appeal
Br. 5. According to Appellants, these structures are distinct and cannot be
interchanged because doing so would render Rafalovich unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Id. at 5-7.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument, which is not responsive
to the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner did not find that Rafalovich's
elements 510 and 530 are interchangeable, as Appellants argue. Rather, the
Examiner found that element 530 corresponds to the "tank" recited in claim
1, without being interchanged with anything. Final Act. 3; Ans. 13.
Rafalovich describes element 530 as a "medium path in a heat exchanger."
Rafalovich i-f 20. That Rafalovich does not utilize the term "tank," when
describing element 530, is not dispositive because a reference need not
employ the same terminology as used in the claims. See Reply Br. 2--4.
Indeed, a prior art reference may disclose a claimed invention even though it
describes the claimed subject matter using different terms. See In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978).
We are unpersuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of "tank" to
include Rafalovich's medium flow path 530 was unreasonable. Appeal Br.
8; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants define "tank" as "a large receptacle or storage
chamber, especially for liquid or gas." Appeal Br. 8. This definition is
4
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
consistent with Appellants' Specification, which explains that "secondary
cooling loop 116 includes a tank 120 that is configured to store a portion of
the coolant material." Spec. i-f 23 (emphasis added). Rafalovich's medium
path 530, which is part of heat exchanger 570, satisfies Appellants' own
interpretation of a "tank" because path 530 is a chamber that stores a liquid
cooling medium as it travels from pump 520 to module 540. Rafalovich
i-fi-119-20, 27; Ans. 14 (explaining that because path 530 contains fluid, it is
a tank). We are unpersuaded that because coolant "flows" through path 530,
it is not "stored" there. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants' own construction of
"tank" does not dictate the duration of time for which contents must be
stored in a chamber, or whether the contents may move within the tank.
Furthermore, as noted by the Examiner, Appellants' Specification
explains that "tank 120 can be a heat exchanger." Ans. 14 (quoting Spec.
i-f 23). We are unpersuaded that reliance on this disclosure constitutes
improper hindsight (see Reply Br. 4--5) because the Examiner does not rely
on this statement to provide a reason to modify the prior art. Rather, the
Examiner relies on Appellants' admission as evidence that a tank can be a
heat exchanger, such as that disclosed by Rafalovich. We are also
unpersuaded that this statement describes Appellants' "novel technology ...
that a tank can be made to behave as a heat exchanger." Reply Br. 5. The
cited disclosure does not state what the tank may do, e.g., "behave as a heat
exchanger," but rather, the disclosure states simply what the tank may be,
e.g., "a heat exchanger." This disclosure supports the Examiner's finding
that medium path 530 of Rafalovich's heat exchanger is encompassed by a
tank as claimed.
5
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Rafalovich's
tank 510 is not in thermal communication with the evaporator or the freezer
section. Appeal Br. 8. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on
Rafalovich's path 530 as the claimed tank and, as shown in Figures 1 and 2,
path 530 is in thermal communication with evaporator 220 (Rafalovich i-f 26
("refrigerant in the refrigerant coil 220 absorbs heat from the medium
flowing in the medium path 530")) and also with freezer section 101 (id.
i-f 29 ("path 530 [is] disposed next to a back wall of the freezer compartment
101 ")).
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Hall fails to
disclose a removable tank of a secondary cooling loop that is placed in
thermal communication with an evaporator or freezer section of a separate
cooling loop. Appeal Br. 10. As the Examiner notes, Hall is relied upon
solely for its disclosure of detachability. Ans. 15. Rafalovich is relied upon
for its disclosure of main and secondary cooling loops. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, which we affirm. We also affirm the
rejections of claims 2, 3, and 7-9, which fall with claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and requires that the thermal
communication between the tank and the evaporator or freezer section
"comprises said tank being at least one of [(a)] Integrated with the
evaporator; and [(b )] having a heat exchange portion that is at least partially
located within the freezer section." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Because
these limitations are recited in the alternative, we address only limitation (b ).
6
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
The Examiner finds that Rafalovich as modified by Hall teaches tank
530 located within the freezer section as claimed. Final Act. 4--5 (citing
Rafalovich i129, Fig. 2); Ans. 17.
Appellants contend that Figure 2 shows path 530 "set apart from the
freezer compartment 101" and Rafalovich does not support the Examiner's
findings. 2 Appeal Br. 11-12 (citing Rafalovich i126). Appellants do not
present any argument regarding claim 5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Rafalovich depicts, in
Figure 2, that path 530 is located within the freezer section, e.g., between the
freezer section back wall and an evaporator cover. See Rafalovich i1 29
(disclosing that path 530 is "disposed next to a back wall of the freezer
compartment 101 and behind a freezer evaporator cover"), Fig. 2. We are
also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument regarding paragraph 26. This
argument does not address the disclosure of paragraph 29, which was cited
by the Examiner.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5, which we affirm.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and, through that dependency, requires
that the tank is configured to store coolant material and is configured to be
removably connected to the evaporator. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Appellants incorporate the arguments presented with respect to claims
1 and 4, arguing that because the combination of references does not
2 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding element 510,
upon which the Examiner does not rely to teach the claimed tank.
7
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
disclose a selectively removable tank "integrated with the evaporator," the
combination also does not disclose a tank "removably connected to the
evaporator." Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants' incorporation of arguments presented with respect to
claim 1 is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appellants'
arguments regarding limitations presented by claim 4, i.e., "integrated with
the evaporator," are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with
the scope of claim 6, which does not depend from claim 4 and therefore does
not require "integrat[ion] with the evaporator." Appeal Br. 17-18 (Claims
App.). Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's conclusion that
it would have been obvious to have modified Rafalovich's tank 530 and
evaporator 220 to be detachably connected, i.e., removably connected, for
ease of tank replacement. See Appeal Br. 12; Final Act. 3-5.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 6, which we affirm.
Claims 10, 11, and 14-19
For claims 10, 11, and 14--19, Appellants incorporate the arguments
presented with respect to claims 1, 4, and 6. For the reasons discussed
above, we are unpersuaded by these arguments and, accordingly, affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 11, and 14--19.
Rejection II - Claims 12, 13, and 20
Claims 12, 13, and 20 require, inter alia, that the tank includes at least
one protrusion and the evaporator includes at least one coil, such that the
tank is integrated with the evaporator. Appeal Br. 19-21 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Rafalovich as modified by Hall fails to disclose this
8
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
arrangement, but finds that Felicetta teaches the required protrusion(s),
coil(s), and integration. Final Act. 12-13. Specifically, the Examiner finds:
Felicetta teaches a tank (20) [that] includes a plurality of
protrusions (Conduits entering from the right side of tank 20),
and wherein the evaporator includes a plurality of coils (conduits
entering from the left side of tank 20) ... (Figure 1 illustrates
that the two sets of coils in the tank 20 are integrated with each
other).
Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to integrate Rafalovich's tank and evaporator, in
view of Felicetta's teachings, to increase the heat transfer exchange capacity
of the assembly. Id. at 13.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Felicetta does not support the
Examiner's finding that "two sets of 'conduits' enter the [tank (20)] where
one set of conduits define an evaporator that 'includes a plurality of coils'
that enter the [tank (20)]." Appeal Br. 14--15.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. F elicetta discloses a
system for removing heat loads from a refrigerated storage area. F elicetta,
2:4--7. The disclosed system includes chiller 20, shown in the sole Figure,
which is reproduced below.
9
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
Felicetta's Figure depicts a schematic flow diagram of the
refrigeration system. Id. at 1 :66-68. Felicetta explains that when a desired
temperature of coolant material 32, stored in tank 24, is reached, the material
is pumped through a closed-loop circuit 22 to circulate in cooling coil 34.
Id. at 2:22-25. Felicetta also explains that the coolant material circulates
through chiller 20 of closed-loop refrigeration circuit 12 before returning to
tank 24 through vessel 44. Id. at 51-54. Although the Examiner identifies
chiller 20 as the claimed tank, the Examiner does not explain what aspect of
Felicetta's system constitutes the claimed evaporator. Final Act. 12-13.
Therefore, it is unclear how conduits entering the chiller from the left
constitute coils of an evaporator, as the Examiner found. Id. As a result, the
Examiner's factual findings underlying the conclusion of obviousness are
not supported by a preponderance of evidence.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 12, 13, and 20.
10
Appeal2014-006704
Application 12/612,211
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 and 14--19 is
AFFIRMED; and
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 12, 13, and 20 is
REVERSED.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11