Ex Parte Oturak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

13063175 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2017)

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.
13/063,175 03/09/2011 Mehmet Oturak 101670-0417321 1751
20350 7590 07/19/2017
KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P
EXAMINER
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
CRENSHAW, HENRY T
Suite 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Atlanta, UA 5U5UV 3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHMET OTURAK, EMRE ARISOY, VEYSI ERCAN,
ILKIN TACAN, ALPER MIRZA
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,1751
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM V. SAINDON,
and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated April 9, 2014 (“Final
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Arcelik Anonim
Sirketi a Turkish Joint Stock Company (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
Act.”), and modified in the Advisory Action2 dated October 27, 2014 (“Adv.
Act.”), rejecting claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter is “a cooling device with a single
compressor and multiple cabinets.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is the only
independent claim. Claim 1 reproduced below, with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cooling device (1) comprising more than one cabinet
(2, 102, 202) wherein items to be cooled are placed and which
are positioned separately, a compressor (5) positioned into a
chamber separately from the cabinets (2, 102, 202) and
providing a cooling cycle to be performed, and more than one
valve (6, 106, 206) providing a determination to which cabinet
(2, 102, 202) and in which amount the refrigerant pumped from
the compressor (5) will be directed, a cabinet card (3, 103,
203) located on each cabinet (2, 102, 202), wherein the
cabinet card located on each cabinet includes a dip switch
which sends a sequential logic signal according to an on/off
positions of the dip switches, a main board (4), including
storage of a memory of the sequential logic signal for each type
of cabinet (2, 102, 202) and storage of a corresponding cooling
algorithm, the main board adapted to detect the cooling
algorithm that corresponds to the sequential logic signal
coming from the cabinet card (3) according to the data
stored in its memory, and the main board (4) adapted to
apply the cooling algorithm stored in its memory
corresponding to the logic signal related to each cabinet (2,
102, 202) and thus to control the compressor (5) and the more
2 The rejection of claims 1—7 under 35USC 112, second paragraph, was
withdrawn by the Examiner based upon entry of the amendment filed
October 9, 2014. See Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
than one valve (6, 106, 206) in accordance with the cooling
algorithm corresponding to the sequential logic signal coming
from the cabinet card (3, 103, 203).
(App. Br. 15, Claim App)
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE EXAMINER
Clarke et al. US 6,321,548 B1 Nov. 27, 2001
(“Clarke”)
Lesesky et al.
(“Lesesky”)
US 2003/0193240 Al Oct. 16, 2003
Shoenfeld US 2007/0227204 Al Oct. 4,2007
Monma et al. US 2008/0147212 Al June 19, 2008
(“Monma”)
Cur et al. US 2008/0156009 Al July 3, 2008
(“Cur”)
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cur and Monma.
2. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cur, Monma, and Lesesky.
3. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cur, Monma, Lesesky, and Shoenfeld.
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cur, Monma, and Clarke.
3
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
DISCUSSION
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. The Examiner’s Position
In rejecting Claim 1 as being obvious over the combination of Cur and
Monma, the Examiner found that Cur disclosed a cooling device having
more than one cabinet, a compressor separate from the cabinets, and valves
connecting the compressor to the individual cabinets to supply the
refrigerant. Monma was relied upon to teach a controller main board,
cabinet cards, and dip switches for each of the cabinet cards. Final Act. 4—6,
Ans. 2. For the cabinet cards the Final Action recited that, “each cabinet
has a temperature selector 36, which are ‘a well-known mechanical or
electronic selector mechanism to allow a user to select an operating
temperature for the respective refrigerating modules’, and temperature
sensors 34, see notes on Monma below.” Final Act. 4—6. The limitation of
the main board including a memory of the sequential logic signal for each
type of cabinet and a corresponding stored cooling algorithm was addressed
by recitation to the following statement, “[the] microprocessor based
controller 50, par. 33, see notes on Monma below.” Finally, in response to
the limitation that:
[the] main board adapted to apply the cooling algorithm
stored in its memory corresponding to the logic signal related to
each cabinet and thus to control the compressor and the more
than one valve in accordance with the cooling algorithm
corresponding to the sequential logic signal coming from the
cabinet cart. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
The Examiner stated that, “par. 33, controller 50 controls operation of
central cooling unit 10, which includes the compressor, and also controls the
volume of liquid provided to respective refrigeration modules 20, 22, i.e. the
expansion valves.” Id.
The Examiner in advancing the rejection of this claim stated that, “the
motivation [is] to utilize a readily available and common mechanical
component such as a dip switch to set the operating protocol for each
cabinet.” Id. at 6. The Examiner opines that, “[d]ip switches can be used to
customize the behavior of an electronic device for specific situations, and
are an attractive alternative to devices such as jumper block since they are
quicker to change and there are no parts to lose.” Id. The Examiner stated in
the Answer that “[t]he only modification being made is to replace controls
using the temperature selection switches with controls using dip switches.”
Ans. 4.
B. Appellants’ Position
Appellants set forth several arguments in response to the Final Action.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie
case of obviousness and have “failed to meet the evidentiary burden.”
Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 2. Next, Appellants argue that the combination of
Cur and Monma changes the operating principle of Cur such that it would be
inoperative and that “the [references] teach[] away from each other such that
the principle operation would be changed or made inoperable.” Appeal Br.
11, Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that Monma, “does not teach a dip switch
much less disclose any cabinet card including a dip switch located on each
cabinet.” Id. at 12. Appellants further argue in the Reply Brief, “even
5
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
assuming Monma teaches ‘a dip switch’ it does not teach a dip switch much
less disclose any cabinet card including a dip switch located on each
cabinet.” Reply Br. 4. In response to the Examiner’s position that the
temperature selectors of Cur being replaced by the dip switch of Monma,
Appellants state “Monma appears to teach a centralized control for each dip
switch is connected to a [separate] ‘home appliance 11’” (see figure 1). Id.
at 6. Appellants also argue that the dates of the references establishes a
teaching away by Cur. Appeal Br. 13.
C. Discussion
We must decide whether the combination of Cur and Monma teach
every aspect of the claimed invention, and whether there is a rational
underpinning for the Examiner’s rejection.
As was stated in the Final Action, “Cur does not teach a dip switch
and a main board that receives and processes signals from the dip switch to
control the system.” Final Act. 6. Monma teaches the use of a main board
or control unit as shown in Fig. 2 that includes a dip switch 28. “The switch
units 28 are provided for the respective terminals 12 to set information on
the home appliances 11 connected to the respective terminals 12 from the
outside.” Monma 126. Therefore, switch 28 is used to send information to
the terminals. This information is then transmitted to the appliances.
Appellants go on to argue that, “[i]t clearly appears that the terminals 12 are
for a number of home appliances.” Appeal Br. 11. Stated a little differently,
there is one dip switch for multiple appliances in Monma. This is in contrast
to Appellants’ claimed invention where a cabinet card and dip switch are
placed on each appliance and a logic signal is sent to the main board:
6
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
a cabinet card (3, 103, 203) located on each cabinet (2, 102,
202), wherein the cabinet card located on each cabinet includes
a dip switch which sends a sequential logic signal according to
an on/off positions of the dip switches . . . the main board
adapted to detect the cooling algorithm that corresponds to the
sequential logic signal coming from the cabinet card (3)
according to the data stored in its memory, and the main board
(4) adapted to apply the cooling algorithm stored in its memory
corresponding to the logic signal related to each cabinet.
Id. 15. (Claim Appendix)
The combined teachings of Cur and Monma do not disclose a card
including a dip switch for each appliance—Cur does not teach a card with
dip switches and Monma only discloses a single card for all appliances.
Further, the proposed combination of Cur and Monma does not establish that
the main board is adapted to detect the sequential logic signal coming from
the cabinet card. Finally, the Examiner has not articulated a reason with
rational underpinnings as to why it would have been obvious to replicate
Monma’s single card for each appliance in Cur. The Examiner’s Answer
states that the reason “is to replace controls using the temperature selection
switches with controls using dip switches.” Ans. 4. This is not supported by
rational underpinnings, however, because Monma recites that a dip switch
may be used in a switch unit but does not specify how the dip switch is used,
much less to the use of a dip switch as a part in a cabinet card that sends a
sequential logic signal to the controller.
The Examiner has not established that a person having ordinary skill
would have combined Cur and Monma to create Appellants’ claimed
invention.
7
Appeal 2016-001133
Application 13/063,175
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or the rejection of claims 2—7, which depend from claim 1. See 37
CFR 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8