Ex Parte Stock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2014

11531299 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2014)

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.
11/531,299 09/13/2006 Darrell A. Stock 044348-9053-01 1006
123446 7590 12/30/2014
Ingersoll-Rand Company
Krieg DeVault LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
COX, ALEXIS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2014 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 DARRELL A. STOCK and SCOTT E. MILLER
____________

Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

2
Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A fluid compression system comprising:
a compressor unit operable to create a flow of
compressed fluid;
a first heat exchanger operable to receive the flow of
compressed fluid at a first temperature and discharge the flow
of compressed fluid at a second temperature;
a flow of coolant;
a second heat exchanger disposed adjacent the first heat
exchanger and adapted to receive the flow of coolant at a first
coolant temperature and discharge the flow of coolant at a
second coolant temperature;
a blower operable to produce a flow of ambient air that
passes through the first heat exchanger and the second heat
exchanger in series such that the second temperature is less than
the first temperature and the second coolant temperature is less
than the first coolant temperature;
a variable speed motor coupled to the blower and
operable at a motor speed; and
a control system operable to vary the motor speed
between a low speed and a high speed, wherein a first portion
of the flow of coolant is directed to the variable speed motor to
cool the variable speed motor and a second portion of the flow
of coolant is directed to the compressor unit to cool the
compressor unit.
Appeal Br. 19, Claims App.

Rejections
The Examiner rejects the following claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the noted references:
Claims 1, 4, and 8 stand rejected over Hirose (US 2004/0031277 A1,
published Feb. 19, 2004), McGovern (US 2002/0096133 A1, published July
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

3
25, 2002), Mount (US 3,618,337, issued Nov. 9, 1971), and Crowe (US
5,271,248, issued Dec. 21, 1993) (Answer 4);
Claim 2 stands rejected over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, Crowe, and
Harnish (US 3,362,185, issued Jan. 9, 1968) (Answer 8);1
Claim 3 stands rejected over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, Crowe, and
Yamauchi (US 6,189,604 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2001) (Answer 9);2
Claims 1, 17, 18, and 21 stand rejected over Harden (US 5,386,873,
issued Feb. 7, 1995) (Answer 6);
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 stand rejected over Harden and Christensen
(US 5,570,738, issued Nov. 5, 1996) (Answer 12); and
Claims 9–16 stand rejected over Christensen, Grimm (US
2005/0138942 A1, published June 30, 2005), and McGovern (Answer 9).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8 over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, and Crowe
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hirose discloses a
compressor unit 3, a flow of coolant, and a variable speed motor 10, but does
not “explicitly disclose the splitting off of a portion of the coolant to cool the
blower motor and another portion to cool the compressor.” Answer 4–5
(citing Hirose, ¶¶ 21, 22, 29). The Examiner finds that Mount discloses

1 In the Final Rejection, the rejection heading states that claim 2 is rejected
over Hirose, McGovern, and Harnish. Final Action (mailed Dec. 23, 2009)
at 6–7. In the Answer, the rejection heading is corrected to also include
Mount and Crowe. Answer 8, 17.
2 In the Final Rejection, the rejection heading states that claim 3 is rejected
over Hirose, McGovern, and Yamauchi. Final Action 7. In the Answer, the
rejection heading is corrected to also include Mount and Crowe. Answer 9,
17.
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

4
diverting a portion of refrigerant to cool the refrigerant compressor. Id. at 5
(citing Mount, col. 1, ll. 51–57). The Examiner finds that Crowe discloses
diverting a portion of refrigerant to cool a motor that is not part of the
compressor. Id. (citing Crowe, Figs. 3, 4). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use portions of coolant to cool both the
compressor unit and variable speed motor, in view of Mount and Crowe, to
prevent these components from overheating. Id.
Appellants contend that Mount does not disclose diverting a portion of
refrigerant to cool the refrigerant compressor. Appeal Br. 9. Rather,
Appellants contend that Mount discloses cooling motor components using a
mixture of oil and refrigerant contacting the motor components. Id. (citing
Mount, col. 1, ll. 55–57).
In response, the Examiner determines that because the structure of
Mount is comprised of the compressor and driving motor in a single
housing, Mount discloses cooling the compressor. Answer 13. The
Examiner also determines that because both the compressor and motor are
cooled, there must necessarily be a portion of coolant that cools the
compressor and a portion of coolant that cools the motor. Id.
Appellants respond that even if Mount’s compressor is cooled, Mount
still does not disclose that a first portion of coolant is used to cool the
variable speed motor, and a second portion of the coolant is used to cool the
compressor. Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants. Mount discloses cooling the drive motor
components of the compressor unit with the oil-refrigerant mixture. See
Mount, col. 2, ll. 63–67. The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in
Mount that a different portion of the oil-refrigerant mixture is directed to
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

5
cool “a compressor unit operable to create a flow of compressed fluid,” as
claimed.
Appellants also contend that Crowe does not disclose diverting a
portion of refrigerant from a flow of refrigerant. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants
correctly contend that Figure 3 of Crowe does not show first coolant path 32
and second coolant path 36 branching off from a single source. Id. (citing
Crowe, col. 4, ll. 24–26). Appellants also correctly contend that the coolant
in first coolant path 32 is different from the coolant in second coolant path
36. Id. We note that Figure 3 of Crowe shows that oil is supplied to
generator 34 via first coolant path 32, whereas refrigerant is supplied to
generator 34 via second coolant path 36. Appellants further contend that no
portion of coolant is diverted in Crowe, but, rather, in each coolant path the
entire portion of coolant cools the components in that coolant path. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that Appellants’ argument regarding
Crowe is unpersuasive “because Crowe discloses splitting two different types
of coolant.” Answer 14 (emphasis added).
However, claim 1 does not recite “two different types of coolant.”
Rather, claim 1 requires that “a first portion of the flow of coolant is directed
to the variable speed motor to cool the variable speed motor and a second
portion of the flow of coolant is directed to the compressor unit to cool the
compressor unit.” Emphasis added. That is, the flow of coolant directed to
both the variable speed motor and compressor unit is the same coolant flow.
The Examiner also states that splitting coolant flow to cool different
components is extremely old and well known in the art. Answer 14. In
support, the Examiner states that Snoberger and Gay “disclose cooling the
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

6
motor of a compressor and or the compressor itself with a portion of the
refrigerant in a refrigeration system.”3,4 Id. at 15.
We note that both Snoberger and Gay are mentioned in the Final
Rejection only in the Conclusion section. See Final Action 15. Appellants
correctly note that neither Snoberger nor Gay is applied as prior art in any
rejection included in the Final Action. Reply Br. 5–6. In addition, the
Examiner does not cite to any specific disclosure in either Snoberger or Gay
that evidences the “well known” feature. Further, the Examiner does not
explain how the applied combination of Hirose, McGovern, Mount, and
Crowe would be modified in view of either Snoberger or Gay to result in the
combination having the claimed flow of coolant. Thus, we find that the
Examiner’s reference to Snoberger and Gay fails to overcome the above-
described deficiencies of the application of Hirose, Mount, and Crowe.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 over
Hirose, McGovern, Mount, and Crowe.

Rejection of claim 2 over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, Crowe, and Harnish
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner
additionally relies on Harnish for disclosure relating to the use of a
centrifugal compressor in an air conditioning system. Answer 8. Because
the Examiner’s application of Harnish fails to cure the deficiencies of the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2
over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, Crowe, and Harnish.

3 US 1,700,840, issued Feb. 5, 1929.
4 US 3,222,555, issued Dec. 7, 1965.
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

7
Rejection of claim 3 over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, Crowe, and Yamauchi
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner relies
on Yamauchi for disclosure relating to the use of a centrifugal blower.
Answer 9. Because the Examiner’s application of Yamauchi fails to cure the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 3 over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, Crowe, and Yamauchi.

Rejection of claims 1, 17, 18, and 21 over Harden
The Examiner finds that Harden discloses compressor 40, a first heat
exchanger (intercooler 42), a second heat exchanger (oil cooler 45), a flow
of coolant (“airstream”), and a blower (fan 131). Answer 7 (see Fig. 4). The
Examiner determines that Harden does not disclose the coolant used to cool
the motor of the blower or the compressor, but concludes that it would have
been obvious to use the cooling air to cool the blower motor. Id. The
Examiner also states that because it is well known to cool a compressor with
coolant and/or working fluid, it would have been obvious to cool the
compressor with a portion of the coolant. Id. In support, the Examiner cites
to the “above rejection of claim 1” and the “notice of references cited.” Id.
As shown in Figure 4 of Harden, compressor 40 includes first stage
40A and second stage 40B. See Harden, col. 2, ll. 54–56. Compressed air
flows from first stage 40A to intercooler 42. See Harden, col. 3, ll. 20–25;
Fig. 4. Oil flows from compressor 40 to oil cooler 45. Fan 131 is operable
to provide a cooling airstream across intercooler 42 and oil cooler 45. See
Harden, col. 3, ll. 64–67; Fig. 4.
Appellants contend that Harden does not disclose a second heat
exchanger operable to receive the flow of coolant at a first temperature and
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

8
discharge the flow of coolant at a lower, second coolant temperature.
Appeal Br. 13. Rather, Appellants contend that the coolant entering the
second heat exchanger (45) is the airstream, and the airstream is heated as it
passes through the second heat exchanger. Id. Appellants also contend that
the claimed invention uses ambient air to cool the coolant, whereas Harden
uses ambient air as the coolant, and the coolant is heated as it flows through
the heat exchangers. Id.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Claim 1 requires that the
second heat exchanger receive the flow of coolant, and that the blower
produce a flow of ambient air that passes through the second heat exchanger
such that the flow of coolant is discharged therefrom at a lower second
coolant temperature. The ambient air flow cools the flow of coolant in the
second heat exchanger.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Harden does not disclose a
second heat exchanger that discharges coolant at a lower temperature than
the intake temperature of the coolant (Answer 17), the Examiner states, “it
would have been obvious to have a cooler which reduces temperature of
ambient air after it has passed through one component and before it passes
through another” (id.). The Examiner does not, however, specifically
explain how Harden’s apparatus would be modified to include “a second
heat exchanger . . . adapted to receive the flow of coolant at a first coolant
temperature and discharge the flow of coolant at a second coolant
temperature,” where “the second coolant temperature is less than the first
coolant temperature,” as claimed. In addition, the Examiner fails to
articulate an adequate reason with a rational underpinning why one skilled in
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

9
the art would have modified Harden’s apparatus as required by claim 1 to
result in the claimed fluid compression system.
For reasons similar to those discussed above in regard to the rejection
of claim 1 over Hirose, McGovern, Mount, and Crowe, the Examiner’s
reference to the “above rejection of claim 1” and the “notice of references
cited” (Answer 7) in support of the rejection of claim 1 over Harden fails to
cure the above-discussed deficiencies of this rejection. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Harden.
Claim 17 recites a fluid compression system comprising “a second
heat exchanger operable to receive the flow of coolant at a first coolant
temperature and discharge the flow of coolant at a second coolant
temperature that is lower than the first temperature.” Appeal Br. 23, Claims
App. Appellants’ contention that claim 17 is patentable over Harden for the
same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1 is persuasive. Id. at 13–
14. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17, or dependent claims
18 and 21, over Harden.

Rejection of claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 over Harden and Christensen
The Examiner’s application of Christensen for the rejection of claims
6, 7, 19, and 20, which depend from claim 1 or claim 17 (Answer 12–13),
fails to cure the above-described deficiencies of the rejection of claims 1 and
17 over Harden. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 19, and
20 over Harden and Christensen.

Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

10
Rejection of claims 9–16 over Christensen, Grimm, and McGovern
Claim 9 is directed to a heat exchange system comprising, in part, “a
controller operable in response to the measured outlet temperature to vary
the speed of the motor between the first speed and the second speed
independent of the compressor.” Appeal Br. 21, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Christensen discloses a heat exchange system
comprising a compressor unit (turbocharger 30), blower 20, and a variable
speed motor (internal combustion engine 10). Answer 9. The Examiner
finds that Christensen does not disclose a separate controller to operate the
fan in accordance with demand, or that the fan motor is operated
independently from the compressor. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds that
Grimm discloses a system controller, which controls fan speed
independently of compressor speed in the “pure ventilation mode.” Id.
(citing Grimm ¶ 46). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to incorporate Grimm’s controller into Christensen to permit better
control of the system. Id.
Appellants contend that Grimm does not disclose controlling fan
speed independent of the compressor. Appeal Br. 16. Appellants contend
that Grimm discloses a ventilation mode in which the coolant in air-
treatment system 10 remains stationary. Id. (citing Grimm ¶ 46). According
to Appellants, the stationary “coolant” is used for heating, not for cooling.
Id. Appellants also contend that Grimm discloses “refrigerant” is used with
the air conditioning compressor, and “coolant” is used in reference to the
heater, but Grimm does not disclose that the refrigerant is stationary in the
ventilation mode. Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

11
The Examiner states that in order for the coolant to be stationary in
Grimm, the compressor is not running. Answer 18. The Examiner also
states that it is irrelevant whether this mode in Grimm is for heating or
ventilation in regard to whether the fan speed is independently controlled
compared to the compressor speed. Id.
We understand Appellants’ essential contention to be that Grimm
does not disclose controlling fan 60 independent of the compressor, but only
controlling fan 60 in reference to the heater. Appellants’ contentions are
persuasive. Appellants correctly point out that Grimm describes a “coolant”
with respect to heating. For example, Figure 2 of Grimm shows fans 60
associated with operator cabin 16 and sleeping cabin 18, and heating device
59 associated with operator cabin 16. See also Grimm ¶ 21. Grimm states
“heating device 59 may be any device for heating the air such as a heat
exchanger with heated coolant.” See Grimm ¶ 21. The Examiner does not
identify any disclosure in Grimm that supports the finding that Grimm’s
statement, “[w]hen in a ventilation mode, the coolant in the air-treatment
system 10 remains stationary” (see Grimm ¶ 46), means that compressor 22
in cooling circuit 12 is necessarily not running at this time. As such, the
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Grimm
discloses a system controller, which controls fan speed independently of
compressor speed in the ventilation mode. Thus, the Examiner does not
establish that the applied combination of references includes all of the
limitations recited in claim 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9,
or dependent claims 10–16, over Christensen, Grimm, and McGovern.

Appeal 2011-005033
Application 11/531,299

12
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–21.

REVERSED

rvb