Ex Parte Low et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09624151 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LENNY LOW and RANDY PON
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 24-37,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a spacecraft radiator system using a heat
pump. Further understanding of the invention may be obtained from a reading of
representative claim 24, which is reproduced in the opinion section of this decision.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Camaret 4,756,493 Jul. 12, 1988
Scaringe et al. (Scaringe) 5,142,884 Sep. 1, 1992
Homer et al. (Homer) 5,310,141 May 10, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 24-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that appellants, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Scaringe.
Claims 27, 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Homer.
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 3
Claims 29, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Camaret.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 17 and 19) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 24, the sole independent claim before us on appeal, reads as follows:
24. In a spacecraft having a plurality of surfaces, including
at least one radiating surface and at least one solar loaded
surface, a heat dissipating system for dissipating heat from a
spacecraft payload comprising:
an evaporator which receives a fluid medium heated
by said payload, and evaporates said medium producing an
evaporated fluid medium at a first operating temperature,
a compressor which receives the evaporated fluid
medium and compresses the evaporated fluid medium
raising the temperature of the evaporated fluid medium to a
second operating temperature which is greater than the
temperature of the at least one solar loaded surface; and
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 4
a radiator-condenser which receives the compressed
fluid medium from the compressor and radiates the heat
from the spacecraft through said radiator-condenser and
said at least one solar loaded surface.
The written description rejection
The examiner alleges that the application as originally filed fails to provide
support for the limitation in claim 24 that the compressor raises the temperature of the
evaporated fluid medium to a second operating temperature which is greater than the
temperature of the at least one solar loaded surface. The examiner is correct that
appellants’ specification does not expressly disclose that the compressor raises the
temperature of the evaporated fluid medium to a temperature which is greater than the
temperature of the at least one solar loaded surface. The test for determining
compliance with the written description requirement, however, is whether the disclosure
of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor
had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence
or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language. See Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this instance, appellants’ specification informs us on page 2 that:
Currently used state-of-the-art spacecraft radiator systems
have the radiator temperature either the same or lower than
the payload or source temperature. In contrast, the heat
pump system employed in the present invention allows the
temperature of the radiator-condenser to be elevated,
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 5
thereby reducing the required area of the spacecraft radiator
and the mass of the spacecraft.
Typical spacecraft currently use the north and south
faces of the spacecraft as primary radiating surfaces. The
other spacecraft surfaces (east, west, earth and aft) are
usually not effective as primary radiating surfaces due to
high relative solar loading. Using the present heat pump
system, spacecraft radiator temperatures can be elevated,
and therefore these other surfaces of the spacecraft (west,
east, earth and aft) can be effectively used as radiating
surfaces.
The present specification further discloses on page 3 that:
The heat pipe radiator panels of conventional spacecraft
heat dissipating systems are at or below the source or
payload temperature as opposed to the present invention
which is at elevated temperature. Currently deployed
spacecraft use north-south radiating surfaces, while the
present invention allows all surfaces of the spacecraft to be
in thermal communication and be effectively used as
radiators.
According to the disclosure on page 4 of appellants’ specification, the heat pump
of the present invention comprises an evaporator 22, a compressor 23 and an
expansion valve 24. The compressor 23 elevates the temperature of the fluid above
that of the evaporator 22 and is coupled to the radiator-condenser 26 disposed on
selected surfaces of the spacecraft which radiates heat from the system and the
spacecraft.
From the above disclosures in appellants’ specification as originally filed, one of
ordinary skill in the art of heat transfer would have understood that, in the conventional
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 6
systems discussed in appellants’ specification using heat pipes to transport heat from
the payload to the radiator panels, the solar loaded surfaces (east, west, earth and aft)
are not effective as heat radiating surfaces because the temperatures of these surfaces
approach or exceed the temperature of the payload due to high relative solar loading,
thus preventing effective heat transfer from the payload to the radiating surfaces via a
heat pipe system. Such a person would also have inferred from the above-quoted
disclosure on page 2 of appellants’ specification that appellants contemplated the use of
a heat pump system to elevate the temperature of the heat transfer fluid above that of
the solar loaded east, west, earth and aft surfaces, thereby enabling them to be
effectively used as radiating surfaces.
For the above reasons, we conclude that appellants’ specification as originally
filed is sufficient to provide written description support for the limitation in claim 24
regarding the elevation of the fluid medium temperature to above that of the at least one
solar loaded surface. The examiner’s rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 thus cannot be sustained on this basis.
The remainder of the examiner’s bases for determining that appellants’
specification fails to provide written description support for the subject matter in
appellants’ claims appear to stem from the examiner’s false impression that the
specification provides no disclosure of using a solar loaded surface as a heat radiating
surface. On the contrary, appellants’ specification clearly states in the last paragraph
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 7
on page 2 that the east, west, earth and aft surfaces, which are usually not effective as
primary radiating surfaces due to high relative solar loading, can be effectively used as
radiating surfaces using the heat pump system of appellants’ invention. One of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood from that disclosure that appellants contemplated
using the solar loaded surfaces as radiating surfaces. It follows that the examiner’s
rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 likewise cannot be sustained on
these bases. In light of the above, we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 24-37 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner’s assessment on page 7 of the answer that, if the heat pump
recited in claim 35 is considered to encompass the evaporator, compressor, radiator-
condenser and expansion valve, then the separate recitation of the radiator-condenser
appears to constitute a double recitation, is inapposite. Neither claim 35, including the
recitations in claim 24 from which it depends, nor appellants’ specification defines the
heat pump as including the radiator-compressor. Claim 24, which recites the
evaporator, compressor and radiator-condenser as part of a heat dissipating system,
not a heat pump, makes no mention of a heat pump. Furthermore, as defined in
appellants’ specification (page 4), the “heat pump 21 comprises an evaporator 22, a
compressor 23, and an expansion valve 24 which are coupled in a closed-loop manner
to the radiator-condenser 26 in the manner shown in Fig. 2.” We read this disclosure as
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 8
defining the heat pump as comprising only the evaporator, compressor and expansion
valve, with the heat pump being coupled in a closed-loop manner to the radiator-
condenser. Moreover, as illustrated in appellants’ Figure 2, the radiator-condenser is
clearly not part of the heat pump 21 (note the dotted line denoted by the reference
numeral 21).
Nevertheless, we shall sustain the indefiniteness rejection as to claims 35-37,
inasmuch as appellants have conceded on page 11 of their brief that the rejection of
claims 35-37 as being indefinite because “the heat pump” lacks antecedent basis in the
claims, is appropriate and that these claims are deserving of correction. For the
reasons which follow, we shall not, however, sustain the rejection of claims 24-34.
The examiner’s criticism of the terminology “heat out” in claim 26 is without merit,
as this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the heat exchange field to mean
heat transferred from the radiator-condenser. Likewise, while the term “smooth” in
claim 27 is a relative term, we agree with appellants (brief, page 12) that one of ordinary
skill in the field of heat exchangers would understand what is meant by “smooth walled
tubing.” As for the examiner’s criticism that it is not clear what structures correspond to
the “radiator-condenser” in claims 24-37, it appears clear to us from appellants’
specification that the radiator-condenser 26 is a heat exchange structure in which the
fluid medium is condensed and the heat dissipated thereby is radiated out from said
heat exchange structure. With regard to the limitation in claim 31 that the compressor
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 9
comprises means for elevating the temperature of the fluid medium above the
temperature of fluid medium in the evaporator, one familiar with compressors would
understand what types of structures are conventionally used to compress the fluid
medium to thereby elevate its temperature. Finally, the issue of whether the “at least
one deployable radiating surface” in claim 34 and the “one or more deployable radiating
surfaces” in claim 35 refer to or are in addition to the at least one radiating surface
previously recited in claim 24 is one of breadth, not indefiniteness. Just because a
claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169
USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140
(CCPA 1970) and Ex parte Scherberich, 201 USPQ 397, 398 (Bd. App. 1977).
The prior art rejections
We shall not sustain any of the prior art rejections. Each of the examiner’s prior
art rejections is grounded in part on the examiner’s mistaken determination that
Scaringe meets the limitations in claim 24 that the compressor raises the temperature of
the evaporated fluid medium to a second operating temperature which is greater than
the temperature of the at least one solar loaded surface and that the radiator-condenser
radiates heat from the compressed fluid medium through the at least one solar loaded
surface. In dealing with these limitations, the examiner states on page 8 of the answer
that
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 10
[a] spacecraft inherently is a three-dimensional object and
thus inherently has a plurality of surfaces, at least one of
which is radiating and at least one of which is solar loaded.
The radiator-condenser and the heat pipe network that are
part of the heat dissipating apparatus for use on the
spacecraft are disposed on the spacecraft in one way or
another and are thus inherently coupled (directly or
indirectly) to one of the plurality of the interior and/or exterior
surfaces of the spacecraft. The compressor 33 or 33' is
inherently operationally coupled to some spacecraft power
source. Little or no patentable weight is given to the
functional language in the claims (i.e., the limitations relating
to raising the temperature of the fluid medium to a particular
operating level as claimed). A reverse Rankine
thermodynamic cycle heat pump is a standard vapor
compression cycle heat pump by definition.
As an initial matter, the examiner’s dismissal of the limitation relating to raising
the temperature of the fluid medium to a temperature above that of the at least one
solar loaded surface as deserving of little or no patentable weight is inappropriate. It is
well settled that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of
that claim against the prior art. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494,
496 (CCPA 1970).
While the compressors and condenser of Scaringe’s heat pump system are
thermally coupled to the radiator 20 by a heat pipe and while one of ordinary skill in the
art would most probably infer that the radiator 20 is associated with at least one external
surface of the spacecraft for heat rejection from the spacecraft, Scaringe gives
absolutely no indication that the heat pump or radiator is in thermal communication with
a solar loaded surface, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean a
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 11
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
surface other than the north or south face, or that the temperature of the fluid medium is
raised above that of a solar loaded surface. Like appellants, Scaringe (column 2, lines
15-17) recognizes that the use of heat pumps in heat dissipation systems in spacecraft
can improve the heat rejection capability of a spacecraft by permitting the heat-rejection
temperature to be raised, which makes the radiator more efficient. Unlike appellants,
however, Scaringe, does not disclose raising the heat-rejection temperature to a
temperature above that of a solar loaded surface to permit such to be effectively used
as a radiating surface.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 24, or claims
25, 28, 30, 31, 36 and 37 depending therefrom, as being anticipated1 by Scaringe.
Finding nothing in the additional teachings of Homer and Camaret relied upon in
rejecting the remaining dependent claims which overcomes the above-noted deficiency
of Scaringe, we also cannot sustain the rejections of claims 27, 32 and 33 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Homer and claims 29, 34 and 35 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Camaret.
CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 12
To summarize, the rejection of claims 24-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed and the rejection of claims 24-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is sustained as to claims 35-37 and reversed as to claims 24-34. The
rejections of claims 24, 25 and 27-37 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are reversed.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDB/ki
Appeal No. 2004-1456
Application No. 09/624,151
Page 13
Joyce Kosinski
Loral Space and Communications Ltd
655 Deep Valley Drive
Suite 385
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274