Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

12745168 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/745,168 06/06/2011 Hongbin Ma 08UMC016 / UMO 1565.2 7917
321 7590 03/01/2018
SFNNTOFR POWFR N T T P EXAMINER
100 NORTH BROADWAY FURDGE, LARRY L
17TH FLOOR
ST LOUIS, MO 63102 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
uspatents @ senniger.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONGBIN MA,
JOSEPH A. BOSWELL, and PENG CHENG
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 36, 38—45, and 51—56 which are all the claims pending
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a thermally driven
heat pump (Spec., para. 3, line 1). Claim 36, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
36. A thermally driven heat pump comprising:
a cooling fluid;
a low temperature evaporator for evaporating the cooling fluid
to remove heat;
a primary fluid immiscible with the cooling fluid for separation
by gravity from the cooling fluid in liquid phase and where primary
fluid and cooling fluids have global warming potentials of less than
about 1000, the primary fluid being different from the cooling fluid
and comprising a hydrofluoroether;
a primary fluid evaporator for evaporating the primary fluid by
application of heat;
an ejector including a converging/di verging chamber, nozzle
apparatus in fluid communication with the primary fluid evaporator to
receive primary fluid vapor and to eject the primary fluid vapor into
the converging/diverging chamber, the low temperature evaporator
being in fluid communication with the converging/diverging chamber
so that cooling fluid vapor from the low temperature evaporator is
aspirated into the converging/diverging chamber;
a first heat exchanger located at an outlet of the
converging/diverging chamber of the ejector for receiving a flow of
the primary fluid vapor and the cooling fluid vapor ejected from the
ejector for removing heat from the cooling fluid vapor and the
primary fluid vapor to facilitate condensation of the cooling fluid
vapor and the primary fluid vapor;
a separator in fluid communication with the first heat
exchanger, the low temperature evaporator and the primary fluid
evaporator for use in separating the primary fluid liquid from the
cooling fluid liquid, so that cooling fluid can be returned to the low
temperature evaporator and the primary fluid can be returned to the
high temperature evaporator;
2
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
a return conduit containing the primary fluid connected to the
separator and to the primary fluid evaporator for returning primary
fluid to the primary fluid evaporator.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Seligmann US 1,870,265 Aug. 9, 1932
Nelson US 1,952,214 Mar. 27, 1934
Foa US 3,216,649 Nov. 9, 1965
Meckler US 4,290,273 Sept. 22, 1981
Bourne US 4,329,851 May 18, 1982
Nishino US 5,463,880 Nov. 7, 1995
Dihn US 5,921,315 July 13, 1999
Garris US 6,138,456 Oct. 31,2000
Costello US 2005/0127322 A1 June 16, 2005
Takeuchi US 6,966,199 B2 Nov. 22, 2005
Zhou US 6,994,151 B2 Feb. 7, 2006
3M™ Novec™ 7000 Engineered Fluid, 1—6 (Sept. 2009).
The following rejections are before us for review1:
1. Claims 36 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seligmann and Costello.
2. Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seligmann, Costello, and 3M Novec 700 Engineered
Fluid.
3. Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seligmann, Costello, Zhou, and Dinh.
1 Claims 46—50 are considered cancelled in view of Amendment D, filed
January 7, 2015, at page 4, and the Advisory Action of March 4, 2015,
stating, at Box 7, that the amendment would be entered.
3
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
4. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Seligmann, Costello, and Takeuchi.
5. Claims 51, 54, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seligmann, Meckler, and Bourne.
6. Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Seligmann, Meckler, Bourne, and Nishino.
7. Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Seligmann, Bourne, and Nelson.
8. Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Garris, Seligmann, and Foa.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
ANALYSIS
Claims 36, 38, 39, 43, and 45
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 36 is improper
because it would not have been obvious to combine Seligmann and Costello
to produce an ejector refrigeration system including a cooling fluid with “the
primary fluid being different from the cooling fluid comprising a
hydrofluoroethef’ (App. Br. 7). The Appellants argue that Costello teaches
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
4
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
the use of the hydrofluroether as a heat transfer fluid (App. Br. 8). The
Appellants argue in contrast that in Seligmann the mercury is used to drive
evaporation of the water, and not as a heat transfer fluid, which the water is
(App. Br. 8).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that in the combination of
Seligmann and Costello to meet the argued claim limitation it would have
been obvious to use the hydroflouroether with a global warming potential of
less than 1000 in order to have low environmental impact (Ans. 4, 21). The
Examiner cites to Costello as teaching the use of a hydrofluoroether at
paragraphs 1, 10, and 53 (Ans. 21).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and rationale and adopt the
rejection of record. Here the argued claim limitation requires “the primary
fluid being different from the cooling fluid and comprising a
hydrofluoroether.” The Examiner’s proposed combination of Seligmann’s
heat pump and Costello’s hydrofluoroether would have been an obvious,
predictable combination of familiar elements for their known functions and
to reduce environmental impact. For this reason, the rejection of claim 36 is
sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for claims 38,
39, 43, and 45 (App. Br. 9), and the rejections of these claims is sustained as
well.
Claims 40 and 41
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 40 is improper
because Zhou does not teach “a wick separating the liquid reservoir
compartment from the heat pipes” (App. Br. 9—10). The Appellants argue
5
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
that in Zhou that the membrane 112’ is liquid impermeable and therefore not
a wick (App. Br. 9).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Zhou teaches a liquid
reservoir compartment (102’) and a wick (membrane 112’) separating it
from heat pipes (100’) (Ans. 8, 22). The Examiner also cites to Zhou at
column 6, line 61 to column 8, line 21 and Figure 2A for disclosing the
argued claim feature (Ans. 8, 23).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt the rejection of
record. Zhou shows a membrane 112’ which serves as a “wick” separating a
liquid reservoir and heating pipes. Zhou also discloses that a small amount
of liquid may be included in the vapor port and transferred to the heat
exchanger 100. Further, Zhou at column 8, lines 22—26 discloses that that
the membrane 112’ is part of wicking structure 118’.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 40 is sustained. The Appellants
have provided the same arguments for claim 41 (App. Br. 10), and the
rejection of this claim is sustained as well.
Claim 42
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 42 is improper
because the prior art does not teach “a conduit to connect the second heat
exchanger to the separator” (App. Br. 10).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Seligmann teaches this
limitation at Figure 3 and page 2 lines 105—130 (Ans. 5, 23). Alternatively,
the Examiner asserts that if this is not shown that it would have been an
obvious modification (Ans. 24).
6
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt the rejection of
record that Seligmann teaches this argued claimed features. We also
determine that such a modification to allow for a conduit to extend and
connect distances where needed between the components would have been
an obvious, predictable modification to one of ordinary skill in the art. In
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) the Court stated that
when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” For these reasons, the rejection of
claim 42 is sustained.
Claim 44
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 44 is improper
because the prior art does not teach “wherein the return conduit is in thermal
communication with the first heat exchanger for pre-heating the primary
fluid returning to the primary fluid evaporator” (App. Br. 12).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Seligmann teaches this
limitation by the first heat exchanger (condenser “w”; where the return
conduit is in thermal contact with the first heat exchanger via separator b2)
for pre-heating the primary fluid returning to the primary fluid evaporator
(Kl, page 2:105—3:1) (Ans. 6, 24).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt the rejection of
record. For this reason, the rejection of claim 44 is sustained.
7
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
Claims 51—55
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 51 is improper
because the prior art does not teach or suggest an “absorption apparatus
located at the outlet of the converging/diverging chamber ... for absorbing
the cooling fluid vapor ... to reduce pressure” (App. Br. 14—15).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Meckler teaches a
refrigeration device utilizing a steam-jet refrigeration unit (col. 1, lines 8—12;
Fig. 1) where an absorber (at least absorber section 27; Fig. 1) is located at
the outlet of the converging/di verging chamber (17; Fig. 1; where housing
25 which houses absorber section is located at an outlet of ejector section 17
at a level below the outlet) (Ans. 16, 25).
We agree with the Appellants. Here the argued claim limitation
requires the “absorption apparatus located at the outlet of the
converging/diverging chamber” (emphasis added). In contrast, in Meckler
evaporator 36 is at the outlet, and absorber 27 is placed below the evaporator
and not at the outlet. For this reason, this rejections of claim 51 and its
dependent claims 52—55 is not sustained.
Claim 56
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 56 is improper
because the prior art does not teach “a rotating section including projections
extending inwardly from the inner wall of the converging/di verging chamber
into the flow of the primary fluid and the cooling fluid to mix the two fluids”
(App. Br. 15—16). In particular, the Appellants argue the blade generator in
Foa does not rotate and is stationary (App. Br. 15).
8
Appeal 2016-000094
Application 12/745,168
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the claimed limitation is
shown by the combined teachings of Garris and Foa and that for the cited
claim limitation Garris teaches the “rotating section” (Ans. 26).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that in the cited combination
Garris does teach such a rotating member. Appellants’ arguments attack
references individually, when the rejection is over a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (holding that
“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”). For
these reasons, this rejection is sustained.
CONCFUSIONS OF FAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 36, 38—45, and 56 as listed in the Rejections section
above.
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 51—55 as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 51—55 is reversed. The
Examiner’s rejection of claims 36, 38-45, and 56 is sustained.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9