Ex Parte Matsuoka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201713860470 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/860,470 04/10/2013 Hiromune MATSUOKA DK-US060610A 6023 22919 7590 06/26/2017 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP David Tarnoff 1233 20TH STREET, NW Suite 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680 EXAMINER COX, ALEXIS K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 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): mailpto @ giplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROMUNE MATSUOKA and TOSHIYUKI KURIHARA Appeal 2015-007948 Application 13/860,470 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suhamo (US 2006/0010898 Al, pub. Jan. 19, 2006) and Tomczyk (John Tomczyk, Charging Air Conditioning Systems Using a Superheat Curve, Refrigeration Service and Contracting, Apr. 1998, 18). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-007948 Application 13/860,470 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 2. A refrigerant charging method for a refrigeration device, comprising: checking if a container is at a temperature in excess of 31°C; if the container is at a temperature in excess of 31 °C when checked, cooling the container to 31°C or below using a cooling medium, the container containing a carbon dioxide refrigerant and being configured to supply the refrigerant to a space in the refrigeration device intended to be charged by the refrigerant, confirming that the container has reached 31°C or below, and moving the refrigerant to the intended charging space from the container upon confirming that the container has reached 31°C or below via the cooling step; and if the container is not at a temperature in excess of 31 °C when checked, moving the refrigerant to the intended charging space from the container upon confirming that the container is at a temperature of 31°C or below, when moving the refrigerant from the container to the intended charging space, first, refrigerant that is in a gas phase within the container is moved into the intended charging space, whereupon refrigerant that is in a liquid phase within the container is moved into the intended charging space. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Suhamo discloses a refrigerant charging method as called for in claims 1 and 2, including, inter alia, providing a 2 Appeal 2015-007948 Application 13/860,470 container (refrigerant source 12) and moving refrigerant from the container to the intended charging space in the refrigeration device, except that Suhamo “does not explicitly disclose what temperature the refrigerant in the container is at when being moved, and the confirmation of that temperature.” Final Act. 3—5. The Examiner also points out that Suhamo discloses including both pressure and temperature sensors (pressure sensor 28 and temperature sensor 26) to determine the status of refrigerant in a storage vessel. Id. at 3, 5. Notably, Suhamo’s temperature sensor 26 and pressure sensor 28 measure the pressure and temperature of refrigerant within storage vessel 14, and not the pressure or temperature of refrigerant source 12 (i.e., the stmcture on which the Examiner reads the “container” of claims 1 and 2). Suhamo, paras. 9, 15, 20. The temperature and pressure readings from Suhamo’s temperature sensor 26 and pressure sensor 28 are used to determine the mass of refrigerant in storage vessel 14. Id., paras. 9, 19, 20, 24. The Examiner does not point to any teaching in Suhamo, nor do we find any such teaching, to check the temperature of refrigerant source 12. Moreover, even if the “container” in claim 1 or claim 2 were read on storage vessel 14, rather than refrigerant source 12, of Suhamo, we do not find, and the Examiner does not point to, any teaching in Suhamo directed to checking to determine whether or not the temperature of storage vessel 14 is in excess of any particular temperature. The Examiner finds that Tomczyk discloses comparing ambient temperature to the chart of Tomczyk’s Figure 1, and not adding refrigerant if the temperature is too high. Final Act. 4, 5. The Examiner also finds that the ambient temperature of Tomczyk “is equal to the temperature of the refrigerant container if it has been kept outside.” Id. The basis for the 3 Appeal 2015-007948 Application 13/860,470 Examiner’s finding that Tomczyk teaches not adding refrigerant if the temperature is too high is that, following the directions within Tomczyk’s Figure 1, if the outdoor ambient temperature is at or above 85 °F and the indoor dry bulb temperature is about 70°F, Tomczyk explicitly instructs not to add refrigerant. Id. (citing step 7 in “Current Superheat Method” within Fig. 1). The Examiner explains that Tomczyk teaches not to add refrigerant if the outdoor temperature exceeds the point where the applicable indoor temperature line in Figure 1 crosses the 5°F superheat limit line in Figure 1. Id. at 4, 5—6. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious not to add refrigerant in Suhamo’s method “when the outdoor temperature, and correspondingly the temperature of the refrigerant container, exceed[s] 31 degrees C, in order to avoid adding refrigerant when conditions render it inappropriate to do so.” Id. at 6. Appellants contend that Tomczyk “does not check the temperature of the container,” but, rather, “checks ambient temperature.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s finding equating outdoor ambient temperature to container temperature, and we agree with Appellants. See id. (submitting that it is speculative whether a container will have reached ambient temperature at the time an outdoor temperature measurement is taken, and that Tomczyk does not contemplate checking the container temperature). Thus, combining Tomczyk’s superheat method with Suhamo’s charging method would not have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to check if the container is at a temperature in excess of 31 °C, as called for in claims 1 and 2. 4 Appeal 2015-007948 Application 13/860,470 The Examiner states that Tomczyk teaches measuring outdoor dry bulb and indoor dry bulb temperatures because not all refrigerant containers have temperature gauges and that, when combined with the method of Suhamo, which, according to the Examiner, explicitly detects the temperature of refrigerant in the container, the measurement of outdoor temperature taught by Tomczyk “would use the temperature sensor of Suhamo.” Ans. 2—3. The outside temperature with which Tomczyk’s method is concerned appears to be the “condenser inlet air temperature,” not the temperature of the refrigerant at the time of charging. Tomczyk at 18 (“Step 2—Measure outdoor dry bulb at outdoor unit. This is the condenser inlet air temperature.”); see also id. at 21 (instmcting not to add refrigerant to the system if the indoor dry bulb temperature is 75°F and the system normally mns 23 °F of compressor superheat at 70°F because if the outdoor ambient climbed to 95°F later in the day, the compressor would slug or flood). The Examiner fails to provide sufficient technical reasoning or evidence to explain why, in light of these teachings by Tomczyk, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to use the container temperature, rather than outside temperature at the outdoor unit, in making the determination whether or not to charge the system. Moreover, as Appellants additionally point out, Tomczyk makes no mention of “actively cooling the container to reach a particular temperature, or confirming that a particular temperature of the container has been reached.” Ans. 10. Tomczyk gives no hint that lowering the temperature of the container would impact the determination of whether or not to add refrigerant. 5 Appeal 2015-007948 Application 13/860,470 The Examiner theorizes that if the container were left outside on a hot summer day on which the ambient temperature exceeds 31°C, thereby raising the container temperature to greater than 31 °C, until later in the day when the temperature eventually cools down to below 31°C, thereby also cooling the container down to below 31 °C, this would satisfy the claimed method. Final Act. 4, 6. However, Tomczyk provides no teaching to do so, and the Examiner does not explain with sufficient cogency why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to leave the refrigerant container outside for an extended period of time in the heat, check the temperature of the container to see if it exceeds 31°C, and then check it later after the outside ambient temperature has dropped. For the above reasons, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not supported by sufficient findings and analysis establishing an apparent reason to combine the teachings of Suhamo and Tomczyk to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 or claim 2. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (pointing out that a conclusion of obviousness must be supported by explicit findings and analysis establishing an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suhamo and Tomczyk. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 2 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation