Ex Parte Stockbridge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2018

14371063 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/371,063 07/08/2014 Michael Stockbridge
87059 7590 07/09/2018
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.
61267US02 (U370020US2) 3280
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /09/2018 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 MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE, JOHN R. REASON, and
JOHN T. STEELE
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mertens (US 5,629,568, iss. May 13, 1997). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Carrier Corporation as the real-party-in-interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to transport refrigeration systems. Spec.
i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for controlling speed of an engine, the engine
providing power to a compressor of a transport refrigeration
unit, the method comprising:
generating a speed request, the engine speed responsive to
the speed request;
monitoring a parameter of the transport refrigeration unit;
comparing the parameter of the transport refrigeration unit
to a threshold by predicting that the parameter will exceed the
threshold within a predetermined time; and
generating a speed request offset in response to the
comparing, the speed request offset being added to the speed
request to adjust the speed of the engine.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, and 5-10 as a group. Br. 3-5. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Mertens discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1. Final Action 2. In particular, the Examiner finds that Mertens
discloses "predicting" that a parameter will exceed a threshold as claimed.
Id. (citing Mertens col. 4, 11. 37-56). The Examiner also finds that Mertens
generates a "speed request offset" as claimed. Id. (citing Mertens col. 4,
11. 54--56).
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Mertens
lacks the claimed speed request offset and predicting operation of claim 1.
Br. 3. With respect to the offset limitation, Appellants argue that Mertens
2
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
merely determines current cooling demand and then accesses stored engine
speed values to control the engine speed and compressor speed. Id. at 4
("Mertens lacks any sort of offset"). With respect to the "predicting"
limitation, Appellants argue that the passage of Mertens relied on by the
Examiner is merely directed to how output coefficients are created. Id. at 5.
In response to the "predicting" argument, the Examiner explains that
Mertens monitors "many factors" such as exterior temperature, radiation
measurements, and electrical output consumption, that determines a load on
the cooling system and, in relation therewith, engine and compressor speed.
Ans. 3. The Examiner further explains that these factors produce
coefficients that effect the output requirement of the cooling unit so that the
unit maintains a constant output, a process that is facilitated by a learning
program. Id.
Id.
This "learning program" is trying to use past results to
determine current operation in order to not exceed "the set
temperature" by a "predetermined value" within an
"observations periods". This is how a controller calculates a
prediction (applying past results to determine future
performance) and then determines the appropriate output
needed from the engine in order to meet the demands, this is
how the application defines prediction in paragraph 27 of the
specification.
In response to the "offset" argument, the Examiner states that the
claimed controller only sends one signal to the engine to change engine
speed. Id. The Examiner states that the "offset" is added to the speed
request and this then becomes the speed request that controls the engine. Id.
So the speed request is the only non-abstract claim limitation,
the rest are signals inside of the processor determining a value
3
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
for the engine speed. The Mertens reference also equivalently
calculates a value of engine speed and sends it to the engine.
Id. at 3--4.
Mertens is directed to a controllable drive unit for a refrigerated
transport vehicle or bus that has an internal combustion engine and a
thermostatically controlled cooling system that includes a compressor,
condenser, evaporator, and coolant circuit. Mertens col. 2, 11. 34--44.
Mertens observes certain disadvantages with known, prior art systems that
exhibit "two-point control operation." Id. at col. 2, 11. 45---63.
Such drive units are controlled in such a way that the internal
combustion engine is respectively switched off when the actual
value of a quantity to be controlled exceeds a predetermined set
value in either direction, and it is started up again when the
actual value of the controlled quantity exceeds the set value by
a predetermined difference in either direction, i.e. with a
hysteresis, after which the internal combustion engine and the
drive unit are then operated at full load rpm.
Id. at col. 1, 11. 14--22.
To overcome the known disadvantages of the prior art, Mertens
discloses a control system that takes into account more than just the
difference between the set value and the actual value of the controlled
quantity (i.e., interior temperature). Id. at col. 1, 11. 40-50. Instead, Mertens
also measures other parameters that "affect" the controlled quantity. Id.
Mertens then determines output coefficients and an output requirements
curve for engine speed that is stored in memory in a control device. Id., see
also id. at col. 5, 11. 49--58; col. 7, 11. 7-23. The control device then
determines the speed of the internal combustion engine. Id. at col. 5,
11. 52-58.
4
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
The input side of Mertens' control device is connected to an interior
thermometer, thermometers disposed on the exterior skin of the cooling
chamber, and heat radiation measuring devices that are assigned to window
surfaces. Id. at col. 7, 11. 7-23. Mertens continuously determines a cooling
output requirement from the exterior skin temperature of the cooling
chamber, sunlight radiation from windows, and by the difference between
the interior temperature and the set temperature. Id. at col. 3, 11. 31-39.
The inclusive cooling output requirement report makes it
possible to provide as exactly as possible an adaptation of the
compressor rpm to the respective requirements, so that
practically no stoppage of the driving engine need take place.
Id. at col. 3, 11. 50-54. Mertens' "cooling output requirement" is then
converted into engine speed or compressor speed. Id. at col. 3, 11. 54--55.
This is accomplished by referencing data from tables of a characteristic
cooling output curve. Id. at col. 3, 11. 54--60.
Initially, output coefficients are determined on the basis of
experimental values. Id. at col. 4, 11. 37--47. The coefficients are
subsequently optimized by means of a "learning program."
These coefficients are advantageously optimized by means of a
learning program which, respectively as a function of the
appearance of the requirements for stopping the cooling unit
and as a function of exceeding the set temperature by a
predetermined value within observations periods, which are
greater than the thermal time constants of the heat transfer
through the insulation layer, makes corrections which
incrementally counter the amount of upward or downward
excess, and thereby optimizes successively.
Id. col. 4, 11. 47-56. 2
2 The fact that the changes in cooling requirements can be determined, in
advance, experimentally and then updated by a learning program does not
5
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
Although, it may be true that Mertens does not explicitly state that it
compares a parameter to a threshold and predicts that a parameter will
exceed the threshold within a predetermined time, such is not required in an
anticipation analysis. See In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977)
(while anticipation requires disclosure of each and every element of the
claim at issue in a single prior art reference, the disclosure need not be in
haec verba). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Mertens is more than a refrigerated space that merely responds to an actual
interior temperature in relation to a threshold surrounding a set point on a
thermostat. Rather, by also measuring external skin temperature and
sunlight/radiation and then calculating a cooling output requirement and
referencing such requirement to a learned and stored cooling output curve,
Mertens is acting in a predictive manner to mitigate the thermal events
operating on the refrigerated transport vehicle or bus from the outside
environment, such as a rapid increase in ambient temperature as the truck (or
bus) drives across the desert on a sunny, summer morning. See Mertens
col. 3, 11. 50-54 ("provide ... an adaptation of the compressor rpm to the
respective requirements, so that practically no stoppage of the driving engine
need take place"). The best inference to draw from this disclosure is that
Mertens takes into account how the temperature of the interior space will be
affected by external environmental thermal energy ("calculation of cooling
output requirements") and proactively sets the engine and compressor speed
to meet the calculated requirement. Id. at col. 3, 11. 49--55.
render them any less "predictive" in nature than Appellants' method of
measuring differences in temperature over time to determine a rate of change
by which the temperature may approach a predetermined threshold.
6
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
With respect to Appellants' "speed request offset" argument, we think
the Examiner has stated the better position. Using the "drive across the
desert" example from the preceding paragraph, Mertens engine speed
control signal can be thought of as comprised of two components: (1) a first
component based on the static interior temperature of the refrigerated
compartment; and (2) a second or "offset" component derived from on-
going changes in the internal and external thermal environments. See
Ans. 3--4.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and,
accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3,
and 5-10.
Claims 21 and 22
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 1. Claims App. In traversing
the rejection of these claims, Appellants rely on essentially the same
arguments regarding "predicting" that we have fully considered and found
unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 and find equally unpersuasive here.
Br. 5---6. Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in
connection with claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22.
Claims 11, 13, and 15-20
Claim 11 is an independent claim, and claims 13 and 15-20 depend
therefrom. Claims App. Appellants argue these claims as a group and we
select claim 11 as representative. Br. 6-8. In traversing the rejection of
claim 11, Appellants rely on essentially the same arguments regarding
"predicting" and "offset" that we have fully considered and found
unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 and find equally unpersuasive here. Id.
7
Appeal2017-008615
Application 14/371,063
Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with
claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13, and 15-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-22 is
affirmed.
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