Ex Parte Sommer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2014

11848297 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/848,297 08/31/2007 Steven Trent Sommer 26424-0034-01 3569
65885 7590 10/31/2014
MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
100 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1166
HARRISBURG, PA 17108-1166
EXAMINER
COMINGS, DANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2014 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 STEVEN TRENT SOMMER,
STEPHEN HAROLD SMITH, and JOHN FRANCIS JUDGE
____________

Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven Trent Sommer et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Johnson Controls
Technology Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to an economized refrigeration
system having an auxiliary compressor dedicated to economizer flow. See,
e.g., Spec., ¶¶ 2, 9–11. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A refrigeration system comprising:
a condenser, an evaporator, an economizer, and a main
compressor fluidly connected by a main refrigerant line to form
a main refrigerant circuit;
an expansion device connected to the main refrigerant
line intermediate the condenser and the economizer;
an auxiliary compressor, the auxiliary compressor being
independently controllable with respect to the main
compressor;
an auxiliary refrigerant line fluidly connecting the
economizer to the auxiliary compressor and fluidly connecting
the auxiliary compressor to the main refrigerant line at a
location intermediate the main compressor and the condenser to
form an economizer refrigerant circuit, wherein the auxiliary
compressor is configured to compress refrigerant flowing
through the economizer refrigerant circuit; and
wherein the auxiliary compressor and expansion device
are controllable to maintain a preselected pressure in the
economizer.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Quick US 3,580,006 May 25, 1971
Schibbye US 3,945,216 Mar. 23, 1976
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

3
Shaw US 4,899,555 Feb. 13, 1990
Erickson US 5,174,123 Dec. 29, 1992
Gutheim US 6,820,434 B1 Nov. 23, 2004
Okawara US 2004/0237549 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Wills US 7,075,268 B2 July 11, 2006

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1–3, 5, 11, and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gutheim.
II. Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gutheim and Wills.
III. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutheim, Wills, and Schibbye.
IV. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutheim and Shaw.2
V. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutheim and Okawara.
VI. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutheim and Quick.
VII. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gutheim and Erickson.

2 We note that the rejection of claim 10 was made on the record
(Ans. 13–14), and that Appellants expressly appeal all claims 1–20 (Appeal
Br. 2), so we treat this ground of rejection in logical order, despite it not
being enumerated by Appellants (see Appeal Br. 6–7), as discussed infra.
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

4
VIII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutheim and Wills.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1–3, 5, 11, and 13–16 as anticipated by Gutheim
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 13
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 13 together.
See Appeal Br. 7–11. We select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 3, 5,
11, and 13 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011).
The Examiner found that Gutheim discloses all of the limitations as
recited in independent claim 1. Ans. 5–7 (citing Gutheim, Fig. 1
(reproduced in the Answer); col. 2, ll. 38–51; col. 3, ll. 6–15; col. 3,
ll. 30–40).
Appellants argue that “Gutheim does not disclose an ‘auxiliary
compressor being independently controllable with respect to the main
compressor’ as recited . . . in independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7. This
argument is premised on Appellants’ assertion that “in order to anticipate
[Appellants’] limitation, the auxiliary compressor . . . in Gutheim must be
independently controllable at all times, otherwise it would not be
independently controllable. Id. at 8. We are not persuaded by this
argument, which is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the game is the claim.” It is well
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

5
established that limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon
for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Here,
the claim only recites, in relevant part, an “auxiliary compressor being
independently controllable with respect to the main compressor.”
In this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the recited limitation
of “‘being independently controllable’ simply means that this cylinder
[bottom cylinder 56 identified as the auxiliary compressor] must be capable
of being controlled independently from the other cylinders [other cylinders
41–46 identified as the main compressor].” Ans. 20; see also id. at 5. Here,
the Examiner explained that the auxiliary compressor of Gutheim “is
capable of being independently controlled by virtue of valve 33 which shuts
[off] the flow of refrigerant to that chamber [the auxiliary compressor] and
to none of the others [the main compressor], thus preventing that chamber
[the auxiliary compressor] [from] performing any compression work (as
there is not working fluid supplied[]),” thereby halting operation as a
compressor and meeting the limitations of the claim as recited. Id. at 20.
Thus, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings,
which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants also argue that Gutheim “does not disclose . . . ‘the
auxiliary compressor and expansion device are controllable to maintain a
preselected pressure in the economizer’ as recited . . . in independent
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
identification of various valves of Gutheim “is not a disclosure of how to
maintain a preselected pressure.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added). We are also
not persuaded by this argument, which is not commensurate in scope with
the claim.
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

6
Here, the claim only recites, in relevant part, that the auxiliary
compressor and expansion device are “controllable to maintain a preselected
pressure.” So long as the structure of Gutheim is likewise “controllable,”
then it meets the requirements of the claim. In other words, claims directed
to an apparatus, as here, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of
structure rather than function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477–78
(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909
F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“apparatus claims cover what a device is,
not what a device does”).
In this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the identified structure
of Gutheim (e.g., valves 19, 33, 34, 38) allows the auxiliary compressor and
expansion device to be “controllable to maintain a preselected pressure,” as
recited in the claim. See Ans. 6–7. Appellants provide no evidence or
persuasive technical reasoning why the identified structure of Gutheim
would not be capable of such operation. Moreover, regarding the
preselected pressure to be maintained, the Examiner correctly notes that “in
the absence of any teaching of how such a ‘preselection’ is carried out, any
pressure generated by the compressor of Gutheim is equally capable of
being ‘a preselected pressure’ . . . within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim.” Ans. 21 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants
have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings, which are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and of claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 falling with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gutheim.

Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

7
Claim 2
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 2 separately, asserting that
Gutheim “does not disclose ‘the auxiliary compressor is configured to
discharge compressed refrigerant at a pressure substantially equal to a
discharge pressure of the main compressor’ as recited . . . in claim 2,” and
specifically that “the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Gutheim
explaining how valve 38 could be operated to adjust the discharge pressure
of the auxiliary compressor in Gutheim to match the discharge pressure of
the main compressor.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added). We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument because, as found by the Examiner, “the
compressor cylinders of Gutheim are implicitly capable of operating” as
claimed. Ans. 7.
As discussed in detail supra, claims directed to an apparatus, as here,
must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than
function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Appellants provide no
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning why the identified structure of
Gutheim (e.g., compressor cylinders) would not be capable of such
operation. Moreover, the Examiner correctly notes that “the five chambers
of the main compressor are all capable of being loaded and unloaded to vary
the compressor’s output and that it is thus implicit that they are able . . . to
provide a discharge pressure approximately equal to that of the single
auxiliary cylinder.” Ans. 21.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gutheim.

Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

8
Claims 14 and 16
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 14 and 16 together. See
Appeal Br. 12–13. We select independent claim 14 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claim 16
standing or falling with claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found that Gutheim discloses all of the limitations as
recited in independent claim 14. Ans. 8–9 (citing Gutheim, Fig. 1
(reproduced in the Answer); col. 2, ll. 38–51).
Appellants argue that Gutheim “does not disclose selecting an
economizer operating pressure and operating the economizer at the selected
operating pressure independent of changes in the main refrigerant circuit as
recited . . . in independent claim 14,” and “does not disclose controlling a
rise in pressure across the auxiliary compressor independently from a rise in
pressure across the main compressor based on the selected operating
pressure.” Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellants argue that “the
Examiner has not identified anything in Gutheim that indicates that
[isolation] valve 33 can be set to a position other than open or closed” and
that “the opening or closing of an isolation valve only changes flow rate and
would not be used to control pressure.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because we agree
with the Examiner that Gutheim discloses selecting an economizer operating
pressure (e.g., via valve 33) and operating the economizer at the selected
operating pressure, as the economizer will inherently operate at a pressure
dependent on the selected position of valve 33. See Ans. 8–9. We also
agree with the Examiner that Gutheim discloses “controlling a rise in
pressure across the auxiliary compressor [bottom cylinder 56] independently
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

9
from a rise in pressure across the main compressor [other cylinders 41–46]
based on the selected operating pressure,” since “cylinder 56 is controlled to
operate based on the amount and pressure of fluid provided to it by line 37
(based on the selected position of valve 33 above, amounting to the selection
of a pressure) which does not depend on the operation of cylinders 41–46.”
Id. at 9. Appellants provide no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning
why Gutheim would not operate as described by the Examiner, and such
asserted operational inability is not otherwise self-evident from the record.
Moreover, the Examiner correctly notes that “the open and closed
positions themselves provide the different pressures of the system; when the
pressure generated by an open position for valve 33 is desirable, the valve
opens and when the pressure generated by [a] closed position for valve 33 is
desirable, the valve closes.” Ans. 22. Thus, as the claim does not include
any recitations as to any specific selection of temperatures or pressures, “this
operation is found to be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim.” Id. Thus, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner’s findings, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 14, and of claim 16 falling with claim 14, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gutheim.

Claim 15
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 15 separately, asserting that
Gutheim “does not disclose ‘adjusting the expansion device to modify the
economizer operating pressure to the selected operating pressure’ as recited
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

10
. . . in claim 15,” and specifically that “[s]ince Gutheim does not disclose
operating the subcooler at a selected pressure, Gutheim clearly cannot
disclose controlling an expansion valve to obtain the selected pressure.”
Appeal Br. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because, as
found by the Examiner, modification of the economizer operating pressure
as claimed is inherent since “the pressure at which refrigerant is provided
from receiver 18 to valves 33 and 34 . . . will determine the operating
pressure of the subcooler [economizer].” Ans. 9–10.
Moreover, similar to the discussion supra regarding determination of
a “preselection” pressure, in the absence of any limitation in the claim as to
how such a “selected” operating pressure is determined, any operating
pressure (as explained by the Examiner (see Ans. 9–10, the economizer will
inherently operate at some pressure) is capable of being a “selected”
operating pressure within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Thus, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings,
which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gutheim.

Rejection II
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over Gutheim and Willis
Claim 4
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 4 separately, asserting that the
Examiner has “improperly combined Gutheim and Wills,” and specifically
that “substitution of a centrifugal compressor for the main compressor in
Gutheim would clearly change the principle of operation of Gutheim and
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

11
would render Gutheim unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal
Br. 14; see also id. at 14–15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because this assertion
appears to rely upon bodily incorporation of Wills into Gutheim, which is
not the standard for an obviousness rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, such bodily incorporation is not
commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. As the Examiner
explains in the Answer, “the modification would replace the 6 reciprocating
compressor chambers with 6 centrifugal compressor chambers,” such that
“the compressor of Gutheim would remain a 6-cylinder compressor, with all
cylinders operating under the same principle and thus the principle of
operation of Gutheim and its capability of performing the intended purpose
would be unchanged.” Ans. 22–23. Appellants do not provide any reply
disputing the modification as explained by the Examiner and thus do not
apprise us of error in the rejection as presented.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gutheim and Wills.

Claim 6
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 6 separately, again asserting
that the Examiner has “improperly combined Gutheim and Wills,” and
specifically that “substitution of a screw compressor for the auxiliary
compressor . . . in Gutheim would clearly change the principle of operation
of Gutheim and would render Gutheim unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose.” Appeal Br. 15; see also id. at 15–16.
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

12
As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
because this assertion appears to rely upon bodily incorporation of Wills into
Gutheim, which is not the standard for an obviousness rejection. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Moreover, such bodily incorporation is again not
commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. As the Examiner
explains in the Answer, the modification “would replace the 6 reciprocating
compressor chambers with 6 screw compressor chambers,” such that “the
compressor of Gutheim would remain a 6-cylinder compressor, with all
cylinders operating under the same principle and thus the principle of
operation of Gutheim and its capability of performing the intended purpose
would be unchanged.” Ans. 22–23. Appellants again do not provide any
reply disputing the modification as explained by the Examiner and thus do
not apprise us of error in the rejection as presented.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gutheim and Wills.

Claims 8 and 9
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 8 and 9 together. See Appeal
Br. 16. We select claim 8 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of
the rejection of these claims, with claim 9 standing or falling with claim 8.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants argue the same assertion as discussed supra with respect to
the rejection of claim 4; namely, that that the Examiner has “improperly
combined Gutheim and Wills,” and specifically that “substitution of a
centrifugal compressor for the auxiliary compressor . . . in Gutheim would
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

13
clearly change the principle of operation of Gutheim and would render
Gutheim unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 16.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to the
rejection of claim 4, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, and of claim 9
falling with claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gutheim and Wills.

Rejection III
Claim 7 as unpatentable over Gutheim, Willis, and Schibbye
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 7 separately, asserting that
“Gutheim, Wills and Schibbye do not disclose ‘the screw compressor has a
slide valve and a variable speed drive’ as recited . . . in claim 7.” Appeal
Br. 16. In particular, Appellants argue that “the use of a variable speed drive
in an automotive air conditioning system [as taught in Schibbye] is clearly
not implicit because the compressor is driven by the engine of the
automobile.” Id. at 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because, as the
Examiner correctly notes in the Answer, “the engine itself is the variable
drive of the compressor,” as taught by Schibbye. Ans. 23. Appellants do
not provide any reply disputing the teaching of Schibbye as explained by the
Examiner and thus do not apprise us of error in the rejection as presented.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gutheim, Wills, and Schibbye.

Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

14
Rejection IV
Claim 10 as unpatentable over Gutheim and Shaw
Appellants do not provide any substantive arguments for the rejection
of claim 10, even though this rejection was properly made of record
(Ans. 13–14), and despite the explicit statement that “Claims 1–20 are being
appealed.” (Appeal Br. 2). Accordingly, Appellants have waived any
argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Shaw. See In re
Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Rejection V
Claim 12 as unpatentable over Gutheim and Okawara
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 12 separately, asserting that
the Examiner has “improperly combined Gutheim and Okawara,” and
specifically that “insertion of a control for the discharge rate of the auxiliary
compressor . . . in Gutheim would clearly change the principle of operation
of Gutheim and would render Gutheim unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose,” because “Gutheim does not provide any mechanism to adjust the
discharge rate of the auxiliary compressor.” Appeal Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because attorney
argument cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to
follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind
of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness.”). Attorney argument, such as the assertion that insertion of a
control for the discharge rate of the auxiliary compressor of Gutheim would
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

15
“change the principle of operation” of Gutheim or would render Gutheim
“unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” cannot take the place of evidence
in the record. See Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants provide no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning why
Gutheim would not operate as intended with the insertion of a control for the
discharge rate of the auxiliary compressor, as applied by the Examiner in the
rejection of record. Moreover, the Examiner correctly notes that “Gutheim
does have a discharge control system in the form of valve 33.” Ans. 23–24.
Thus, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Okawara.

Rejection VI
Claim 17 as unpatentable over Gutheim and Quick
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 17 separately, asserting that
“Gutheim and Quick do not disclose ‘adjusting the rise in pressure across the
auxiliary compressor and discharging refrigerant from the auxiliary
compressor at the common discharge location at a pressure substantially
equal to the discharge pressure of the main compressor’ as recited . . . in
claim 17.” Appeal Br. 18. In particular, Appellants contend that “[w]hile
the disclosure in Quick identified by the Examiner may describe the
operation of compressors at the same discharge pressure, it does not describe
adjusting a rise in pressure across one of the compressors to be substantially
equal to the discharge pressure of another compressor.” Id.
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

16
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because, as the
Examiner explains in the Answer, “the main compressor output of Gutheim
is variable by means of loading and unloading and that, as such,” by
“varying the compression capacity to match that of through unloading of the
compressors and discharge balancing as taught by [Quick], the pressure rise
is capable of being controlled and thus will be capable of being substantially
equal.” Ans. 24; see also id. at 15–16. The Examiner further explains that
“in a state where valve 33 is closed and all of the chambers of the main
compressor are unloaded, the rise across both [compressors] will be equal to
zero (as neither will compress refrigerant),” such that the pressure rises in
the compressors are substantially equal within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim. Id. at 24. Appellants do not provide any reply
disputing the explanation by the Examiner and thus do not apprise us of
error in the rejection as presented.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gutheim and Quick.

Rejection VII
Claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Gutheim and Erickson
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 18 and 19 together. See
Appeal Br. 18–19. We select claim 18 as the representative claim to decide
the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claim 19 standing or falling
with claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants argue that “Gutheim and Erickson do not disclose
‘modifying the flow rate to compress only gaseous refrigerant from the
economizer in the auxiliary compressor’ as recited . . . in claim 18.” Appeal
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

17
Br. 18. In particular, Appellants contend that “[w]hile the disclosure in
Erickson identified by the Examiner may describe providing saturated
gaseous refrigerant to a compressor, Erickson does not describe modifying
the flow rate to achieve such an objective.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because, as the
Examiner explains in the Answer, Erikson expressly discloses that “the flash
tank is taught to change the mass flow rate to the inlet of the evaporator []in
order to maximize sub cooling.” Ans. 25 (citing Erikson, col. 5, ll. 37–54)
(emphasis added); see also id. at 16–17. Appellants do not provide any
reply disputing the explanation by the Examiner and thus do not apprise us
of error in the rejection as presented.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 18, and of claim 19 falling
with claim 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim
and Erikson.

Rejection VIII
Claim 20 as unpatentable over Gutheim and Willis
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claim 20 separately,
relying on the same arguments discussed in detail supra with respect to
Rejections I and II. See Appeal Br. 19–23.
In particular, Appellants assert that the Examiner has “improperly
combined Gutheim and Wills,” and specifically that “substitution of a
centrifugal compressor for the main compressor in Gutheim would clearly
change the principle of operation of Gutheim and would render Gutheim
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 19; see also id. at
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

18
19–20. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the same reasons
discussed in detail supra with respect to Rejection II.
Appellants also assert that “Gutheim and Wills do not disclose the
auxiliary compressor being independently controllable with respect to the
main compressor nor the auxiliary compressor and expansion device are
controllable to maintain a preselected pressure in the economizer as recited
. . . in independent claim 20.” Appeal Br. 20; see also id. at 20–23. We are
not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the same reasons discussed in
detail supra with respect to Rejection I.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Willis.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 11, and
13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gutheim.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 6, 8, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Wills.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim, Wills, and
Schibbye.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Shaw.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Okawara.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Quick.
Appeal 2012-003600
Application 11/848,297

19
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Erickson.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutheim and Wills.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh/rvb