Ex Parte Senf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13511800 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/511,800 05/24/2012 Raymond L. Senf JR.
87059 7590 03/22/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
54580US02 (U350116US) 7559
EXAMINER
FURDGE, LARRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND L. SENF JR. and JOHN R. REASON
Appeal 2017-007468 1
Application 13/511,8002
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Oct. 21, 2016), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 17, 2017) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 16, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Carrier Corporation.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007468
Application 13/511,800
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the "disclosure relates generally to transport
refrigeration units and, more specifically, to methods and apparatus for
dynamic conditions therein." Spec. iJ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. In a transport refrigeration unit having a compressor, a
condenser, an evaporator, an economizer, a second expansion
valve coupled between the economizer and the compressor, and
a controller, and a first expansion valve upstream of the
evaporator, a process comprising:
detecting a capacity increase mode transition for the
economizer; and
adaptively controlling an injection flow rate for the
economizer during at least a portion of the capacity increase
mode transition in response to one of available pressure,
available power or available current to the transport refrigeration
unit;
wherein the adaptively controlling comprises selectively
operating the second expansion valve through a transition from
a first non-zero flow rate to a second higher non-zero flow rate
using system conditions to control a rate of transition from the
first non-zero flow rate to the second higher non-zero flow rate
responsive to the capacity increase mode transition.
Br. 13.
2
Appeal2017-007468
Application 13/511,800
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mitra4 in view of Atsushi. 5
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mitra in view of Atsushi and Crane. 6
3. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mitra in view of Atsushi, Crane, and Reason. 7
4. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mitra in view of Atsushi, Crane, and Lifson. 8
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 by Appellants' argument that "there is no predictable
basis to combine" the references cited such that "the proposed combination
of Mitra and Atsushi would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art." See Br. 7-8.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that "Mitra teaches the
basic structure of the invention and the process of detecting a capacity
increase mode transition for the economizer ... ; and adaptively controls an
injection flow rate ... for the economizer during at least a portion of the
capacity increase mode." Ans. 11 (citing Mitra ,-i,-i 37-40); see also Final
3 The Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has
been withdrawn. See Ans. 9.
4 Mitra et al., WO 2008/140454 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2008 ("Mitra").
5 Atsushi at al., WO 2009/069678 Al, pub. June 4, 2009 ("Atsushi").
6 Crane et al., US 2005/0262859 Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2005 ("Crane").
7 Reason et al., US 6,301,911 Bl, iss. Oct. 16, 2001 ("Reason").
8 Lifson et al., US 2005/0235689 Al, pub. Oct. 27, 2005 ("Lifson").
3
Appeal2017-007468
Application 13/511,800
Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Mitra does not disclose adaptive
control in which the second expansion valve transitions from a first non-zero
flow rate to a second higher non-zero flow rate. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
finds that "Atsushi teaches operating an injection valve ... through a
transition from a first non-zero flow rate (50%) to a second higher non-zero
flow rate (70%) using system conditions to control a rate of transition from"
the first rate to the second. Ans. 11. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Mitra to selectively operate the expansion
valve, as taught by Atsushi "in order to increase the flow rate of refrigerant
through the bypass passage and thereby increase the amount of refrigerant in
the target heat exchanger." Final Act. 4.
Although we agree that the test for obviousness is not whether the
features of the secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
primary reference (see Ans. 11 ), the Examiner must clearly set forth the
proposed combination and provide articulated reasoning with the required
rational underpinnings to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We find that the
Examiner has not done so here.
On the one hand, the rejection appears to indicate that Mitra would
only be modified insofar as its second expansion valve would operate in the
same manner as Atsushi's injection valve. However, the proposed
motivation for the combination appears to stem from the fact that Atsushi's
injection valve is related to Atsushi's defrosting mode, i.e., the valve is used
in a defrosting mode which ultimately allows for an "increase in flow rate of
refrigerant through the bypass passage and thereby increase[ s] the amount of
refrigerant in the target heat exchanger, which improves the operating
4
Appeal2017-007468
Application 13/511,800
efficiency of the system." Ans. 12. The Examiner does not adequately
show that modifying Mitra's valve in the economizer to be adaptively
controlled as claimed would result in the benefit stated. Put another way, the
Examiner does not explain why adaptively controlling Mitra's economizer
as required by the claim would result in an improvement in the operating
efficiency of the system.
If, on the other hand, the Examiner is proposing that a defrosting
system and method would be incorporated into Mitra' s system, including the
adaptive control of a valve such as in Atsushi, it is not clear on the record
before us how Mitra would be modified to achieve such a defrosting method.
Specifically, it is not clear that adding a defrosting mechanism to Mitra
would result in a system as claimed, because the claim specifically requires
that the capacity increase mode transition is "for the economizer" and the
flow rate "for the economizer" is adaptively controlled.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, the
only other independent claim on appeal. Claim 10 includes a similar
requirement regarding the adaptive control of a second expansion valve from
a first non-zero flow rate to a second higher flow rate. See Br. 14. For this
requirement of claim 10, the Examiner relies on substantially the same
findings and conclusions discussed above. See Ans. 5. Thus, we are
persuaded of error with respect to the rejection of claim 10 for the same
reasons identified above.
5
Appeal2017-007468
Application 13/511,800
Further, it is not readily apparent on the record that any of the art cited
cures the deficiency found above with respect to the rejections of
independent claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we will also not sustain the
rejection of any of dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, and 11.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11.
REVERSED
6