Ex Parte Scarcella et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201713121486 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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. 13/121,486 03/29/2011 Jason Scarcella 51764US02 (U350077US) 9559 87059 7590 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER TANENBAUM, TZVI SAMUEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2017 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON SCARCELLA and YU H. CHEN Appeal 2017-0039911 Application 13/121,4862 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—3, 6—8, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the “invention relates generally to refrigerant vapor compression systems and, more particularly, to improving 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed July 18, 2016), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 4, 2016), and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 18, 2016). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Carrier Corporation. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 the separation of a two-phase refrigeration flow into a liquid portion and a vapor portion in a refrigerant vapor compression system having a flash tank economizer and operating in a transcritical cycle.” Spec. 11. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A transport refrigeration refrigerant vapor compression system operating in a transcritical refrigeration cycle comprising: a compression device for compressing a refrigerant vapor to a supercritical refrigerant pressure, a gas cooler operating at a supercritical refrigerant pressure, and an evaporator operating at a subcritical refrigerant pressure, said compression device, said gas cooler and said evaporator connected in refrigerant flow communication in a refrigerant circuit; a primary expansion device disposed in said refrigerant circuit between said gas cooler and said evaporator; a secondary expansion device disposed in said refrigerant circuit between said gas cooler and said primary expansion device; a flash tank disposed in the refrigerant circuit upstream with respect to refrigerant flow of said primary expansion device and downstream with respect to refrigerant flow of said secondary expansion device, said flash tank having: a shell defining an interior volume, said interior volume divided into an upper chamber, a lower chamber and a middle chamber; an inlet port positioned in the middle chamber for receiving the refrigerant flow having traversed the secondary expansion device; a first outlet port positioned in the upper chamber for discharging a vapor phase of the refrigerant flow from said flash tank; and 2 Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 a second outlet port positioned in the lower chamber for discharging a liquid phase of the refrigerant flow from said flash tank into the refrigerant circuit; wherein said flash tank further comprises: an elongated support tube extending along a central vertical axis of said shell, said support tube defining a conduit establishing fluid communication between said lower chamber and said upper chamber; and a helical spiral member extending about said elongated support tube and defining a continuous spiral fluid flow passage, a first portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage defining the upper chamber, a second portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage defining the middle chamber and a third portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage defining the lower chamber, the middle chamber positioned between the upper chamber and lower chamber; an upper equalization hole passing through said support tube and located near an upper end of said support tube, said upper equalization hole establishing fluid communication between an upper region of said conduit and the first portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage, the upper equalization hole located in the upper chamber; and a lower equalization hole passing through said support tube and located near a lower end of said support tube, said lower equalization hole establishing fluid communication between a lower region of said conduit and the third portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage, the lower equalization hole located in the lower chamber. Br. 9-10 3 Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 6, 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bush3 in view of Westermeyer.4 2. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bush in view of Westermeyer and Severance.5 DISCUSSION Claim 1 With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bush teaches a system as claimed except that Bush does not teach the specific arrangement of the flash tank claimed. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Bush Figs. 2— 5; col. 1,11. 6—22; col. 4,11. 3—6). With respect to the particular arrangement of the flash tank, the Examiner relies on Westermeyer as teaching a separator “having an equivalent arrangement.” Final Act. 3—5 (citing Westermeyer Fig. 5; col. 6,11. 3—5, 10-12, 19-23). The Examiner also finds that Westermeyer’s system incorporates a helical spiral member that creates “spiral flow paths which increase the effective path length (whether directly or indirectly) in order to enhance separation capability” and that “Westermeyer teaches that this arrangement provides enhanced separation capability without increasing the size of the separator.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Westermeyer col. 2,11. 5—7). The Examiner concludes that “it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bush by Westermeyer to include a flash tank as claimed in order to enhance separation capability without increasing the size of the flash tank.” 3 Bush et al., US 7,891,201 Bl, iss. Feb. 22, 2011. 4 Westermeyer, US 5,404,730, iss. Apr. 11, 1995. 5 Severance et al., US 5,191,776, iss. Mar. 9, 1993. 4 Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner further acknowledges that “Bush, as modified above, does not teach that said upper equalization hole establishes fluid communication between an upper region of said conduit and the first portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow due to baffle 366 (see Westermeyer annotated Fig 5).” Id. But, the Examiner concludes that the elimination of baffle 366 in the combined device would have been obvious because the function of that element would not have been desired. Id. Specifically, the Examiner concludes: Here, it would have been obvious to omit of the baffle 366 (and optionally outlet 370) such that the upper equalization hole establishes fluid communication between an upper region of said conduit and the first portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow if the function attributed to the baffle is not desired or required; deleting the baffle 366 and thereby eliminating its function is an obvious expedient. Id. at 7. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 by Appellants’ arguments. First, Appellants argue that the upper chamber in Westermeyer must be defined by plate 366, which would result in the combined device not including an equalization hole in the upper chamber as required by the claim. Br. 5. We are not persuaded because this argument does not address the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that it would have been obvious to omit baffle 366 in the combined device. Appellants do not appear to otherwise address whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to eliminate this part of Westermeyer in the combined device. Given that the Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner 5 Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 erred in concluding that baffle 366 may be omitted, we are not persuaded that the upper chamber must be bounded at the top by that baffle. Second, Appellants argue that the claim requires that the helical member defines the upper, middle, and lower chambers of the tank such that none of those chambers may extend beyond the helical member. Br. 6. Thus, Appellants conclude that the Examiner erred in defining the upper chamber as the chamber including not only a portion of the helical spiral but also including “the entire section of shell 300 above plate 366.” Id. We are not persuaded of error. The claim language at issue requires that “a first portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage defining the upper chamber, a second portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage defining the middle chamber and a third portion of said continuous spiral fluid flow passage defining the lower chamber.” We also note that the claim uses open ended language with respect to both the system as a whole and with respect to the flash tank, i.e., the claim uses the language “comprising” and “further comprises,” respectively. “‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, without further explanation from Appellants and because the claim uses open-ended language and does not specifically recite that the chambers are solely defined by the spiral passage, we find that the Examiner’s finding that the spiral member only defines the boundaries between the three chambers, and not the entirety of the chambers, is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. 6 Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 Finally, Appellants argue that claim 1 requires that the inlet port is positioned in the middle chamber and that, in Westermeyer, “the inlet port is clearly located in the upper chamber, not the middle chamber.” Br. 6. However, as indicated above with respect to Appellants’ previous arguments, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in defining the upper, middle, and lower chambers in Westermeyer’s tank. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the inlet port defined by the Examiner (see annotated figure at Final Act. 5) is clearly located in the middle chamber of the tank, which is defined as the chamber extending between the two double-sided arrows in the annotated figure. See Final Act. 5 (depicting an annotated Fig. 5 of Westermeyer); see also Ans. 5 (clarifying that the middle chamber extends between the two double-sided arrows). Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 8, for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments. Claim 13 With respect to claim 13, the Examiner finds that “[t]he subject matter of claim 13 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.” Final Act. 8. Although Appellants separately address claim 13, their arguments with respect to this claim appear substantially identical to those raised with respect to claim 1. Thus, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we are also not persuaded of error with respect to the rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13. We also sustain the rejection of 7 Appeal 2017-003991 Application 13/121,486 dependent claim 14, for which Appellants do not present separate arguments. Claim 7 With respect to the separate rejection of claim 7, Appellants argue only that “Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and patentable over Bush in view of Westermeyer and Severance for at least the reasons advanced with reference to claim 1.” Br. 8. However, having found no error in the rejection of claim 1, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—3, 6—8, 13, and 14. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation