Ex Parte Shelton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2015

12980493 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2015)

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.
12/980,493 12/29/2010 Michael Shelton 6506-001 4791
24112 7590 05/29/2015
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL SHELTON
________________

Appeal 2013-005704
Application 12/980,493
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Michael Shelton (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6–9, and 13–16. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a monitor for a refrigeration
system. Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A monitoring system for a refrigeration system, said
monitoring system comprising:
Appeal 2013-005704
Application 12/980,493

2

a sampling device having an inlet connecting to a high
pressure liquid line in a refrigeration system and a
collection chamber to collect refrigerant present in
the high pressure liquid line, said sampling device
extending vertically from the high pressure line
outside the main flow of the refrigerant so as to
trap vapor during normal operation;
a normally closed purge valve in an upper portion of the
collection chamber for purging refrigerant from the
collection chamber, said purge valve connected to
a low pressure line of the refrigeration system; and
a refrigerant state sensor for sensing a condition
indicative of the state of refrigerant in the
collection chamber;
a controller operatively connected to the refrigerant state
sensor and to the purge valve,
said controller configured to:
open the purge valve during normal operation for a
predetermined period of time to discharge
refrigerant from the collection chamber;
detect the state of the refrigerant discharged from
the collection chamber as the refrigerant
passes through an expansion pipe; and
detect a fault condition based on the detected state
of the refrigerant discharged from the
collection chamber.
Appeal Br. 9.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER

McCloy US 2,181,855 Nov. 28, 1939
Matsuoka US 2003/0172665 Al Sept. 18, 2003
Kawahara US 2005/0103029 Al May 19, 2005
Goodremote US 2007/0266717 Al Nov. 22, 2007

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-005704
Application 12/980,493

3

Claims 1, 4, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsuoka, Goodremote, and McCloy.
Claims 6–8 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsuoka, Goodremote, McCloy, and Kawahara.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, and 13 as unpatentable over Matsuoka,
Goodremote, and McCloy
Appellant argues claims 1, 4, 9, and 13 as a group. Appeal Br. 4, 7.
We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012).
Claim 1 recites that the controller is configured to “open the purge valve
during normal operation for a predetermined period of time to discharge
refrigerant from the collection chamber,” and to “detect the state of the
refrigerant discharged from the collection chamber as the refrigerant passes
through an expansion pipe.”
Regarding the above-noted feature, the Examiner states, “the general
concept of controlling refrigerant to be discharged from a tank by opening a
valve for a predetermined time to determine whether or not a refrigeration
system is charged falls within the realm of common knowledge as [an]
obvious mechanical expedient and is illustrated by Goodremote.” Final Act.
4
1
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Goodremote “teaches that
refrigerant is discharged from a tank [30] by controlling [via a controller 48]
a valve [34] to open for a predetermined time when a suction pressure is not
above a predetermined value.” Id. The Examiner states that Goodremote
demonstrates “that a valve can be controlled by a controller to be opened for

1
Mailed on October 20, 2011.
Appeal 2013-005704
Application 12/980,493

4

a period of time based on a sensed condition exceeding a threshold.” Ans.
13.
Appellant asserts, “Goodremote does not disclose the sequence of
steps recited in the claims.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends, “[t]he valve
in Goodremote is not a purge valve. Rather, the valve in Goodremote is a
charge valve. It is not opened to discharge refrigerant from the system, but
rather to input refrigerant into the system.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).
Appellant further explains, “[n]one of the cited references disclose opening
the purge valve during normal operation for a predetermined period of time
to discharge refrigerant from the collection chamber in a sampling device.”
Id. (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 4), Goodremote does
not “[open] a valve for a predetermined time to determine whether or not a
refrigeration system is charged.” Rather, the valve 34 of Goodremote is a
charge valve, i.e., valve 34 opens to allow additional refrigerant to enter the
system in Goodremote when the refrigerant pressure is low. Goodremote ¶
25. Matsuoka provides a system in which valve 12 is kept open during
charging to allow detection of the moment the level of liquid refrigerant
reaches level L0, as shown in Figure 2. Matsuoka ¶ 23. Therefore, neither
the valve 24 in Goodremote nor the valve 12 in Matsuoka is disclosed as
open during normal operation. Rather, the process in Goodremote opens a
valve in response to a signal indicating that the refrigerant pressure in the
system is low, and the process in Matsuoka opens a valve during charging.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, and 13 as
unpatentable over Matsuoka, McCloy, and Goodremote.
Appeal 2013-005704
Application 12/980,493

5

The rejection of claims 6–8 and 14–16 as unpatentable over
Matsuoka, Goodremote, McCloy, and Kawahara
This rejection suffers from the same deficiencies discussed above with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–8 and 14–16 as unpatentable over
Matsuoka, Goodremote, McCloy, and Kawahara.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, and 13 as unpatentable
over Matsuoka, Goodremote, and McCloy is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–8 and 14–16 as unpatentable
over Matsuoka, Goodremote, McCloy, and Kawahara is reversed.

REVERSED
em