Ex Parte TarasDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201713061616 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/061,616 03/01/2011 Michael F. Taras PA07754USAA;60246670PUS1 7608 26096 7590 12/04/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER CRENSHAW, HENRY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL F. TARAS Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael F. Taras (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a refrigerant system for conditioning and delivering air into a climate-controlled environment. Spec. para. 1. Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A refrigerant system comprising: a compressor for compressing and delivering refrigerant to a heat rejecting heat exchanger, refrigerant from the heat rejecting heat exchanger passing through an expansion device, and then to an evaporator; a reheat circuit including a reheat valve for selectively tapping refrigerant from a location downstream of the compressor and upstream of the heat rejecting heat exchanger, and the tapped refrigerant passing through a reheat heat exchanger, the reheat heat exchanger being positioned to be in a path of air having passed over the evaporator, and to be delivered into an indoor environment to be conditioned; a control for the refrigerant system, the control being operable to receive inputs from the indoor environment to be conditioned, and to control the refrigerant system, the control being operable to determine a request for dehumidification provided without any request for significant change in temperature of the air being delivered into the indoor environment to be conditioned, and said control starting operation of the reheat mode of operation by initiating cooling mode of operation for a short period of time in response to such a request; and the short period of time is greater than thirty seconds, and less than five minutes. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite; (ii) claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taras (US 6,941,770 Bl, issued Sept. 13, 2005) 2 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 (hereinafter “Taras l”1) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2007-155305 A, published June 21, 2007)2, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Spec., para. 2; hereinafter “AAPA”), and Bloemer (US 2006/0086112 Al, published Apr. 27, 2006); and (iii) claims 3-5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taras 1 in view of Kobayashi, AAPA, Bloemer, and Taras (US 7,290,399 B2, issued Nov. 6, 2007) (hereinafter “Taras 2”3). ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 8—Indefiniteness With respect to claims 1 and 8, the Examiner finds that the phrase “starting operation of the reheat mode of operation by initiating a cooling mode” renders the claims indefinite, because it is unclear if the “reheat mode of operation” includes simultaneously starting the cooling mode and the reheating of the cooled air, i.e., the reheat mode. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2-3. Additionally, the Examiner questions: (1) how reintroduction of moisture into the controlled environment is avoided if the cooling mode and the reheat mode are started simultaneously; and (2) when the reheat mode 1 As the Examiner refers to this reference as Taras 1, for consistency, we shall also refer to it as Taras 1. 2 Reference herein to the text of Kobayashi will be to a machine-generated English-language translation of the original Japanese publication, of record in the application on appeal. 3 As the Examiner refers to this reference as Taras 2, for consistency, we shall also refer to it as Taras 2. 3 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 begins and ends if the cooling mode and the reheat mode are not started simultaneously. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner also questions: (3) whether the recited short period of time between 30 seconds and 5 minutes satisfies the request for dehumidification throughout the heat mode; and (4) what is the purpose of the recited short period of time. Id. at 4. The Examiner further questions: (5) whether dehumidification continues once the cooling mode ends, and if so, how dehumidification could continue. Id.; see also Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also determines that it is unclear how the phrase “operable to determine a request for dehumidification provided without any request for significant change in temperature of the air being delivered into the indoor environment to be conditioned, ... in response to such a request” distinguishes over the description at paragraph 2 of the Specification, which represents prior art. Id. at 3—4; see also Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that it is unclear whether there is a distinction between the dehumidification mode and the reheat mode. Ans. 3-4. Appellant contends that the claims are clear. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1. First, Appellant asserts that the claims are sufficiently broad as to encompass both starting the reheat mode and the cooling mode at the same time, and waiting for the cooling mode to operate for a short period of time before starting the reheat mode. See Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2. Second, Appellant argues that the phrase “operable to determine a request for dehumidification provided without any request for significant change in temperature of the air being delivered into the indoor environment to be conditioned, ... in response to such a request” is clear because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claims require a request 4 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 for dehumidification without any request for a significant change in air temperature that is delivered to an indoor environment. Reply Br. 2. Appellant has the better position. A claim is properly rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph if, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the metes and bounds of a claim are not clear because the claim “contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed Cir. 2014). Here, the Examiner has not established that various possible operational modes encompassed by the claim limitation calling for “starting operation of the reheat mode of operation by initiating a cooling mode” render the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. Although claims 1 and 8 can be interpreted as encompassing both starting the reheat mode at the same time as starting the cooling mode, and starting the reheat mode after starting the cooling mode, as noted by the Examiner (see Ans. 2-3), that consideration relates to the breadth, and not the indefmiteness, of the claims. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (breadth is not indefmiteness). Further, the Examiner’s apparent concern that certain recitations in the claims might not distinguish over the disclosure of the prior art at paragraph 2 of the Specification, does not evidence that those phrases would be somehow unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 8 as being indefinite is not sustained. 5 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 Claims 1, 2, 8, 9—Obviousness—Taras 1/Kobayashi/AAPA/Bloemer Appellant presents the same arguments for both independent claims 1 and 8. See Appeal Br. 5-6; see also Reply Br. 3—4. Appellant does not present separate arguments directed to dependent claims 2 and 9. Id. We thus, regard claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 to be argued as a group. We take claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2, 8, and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Taras 1 discloses the main components of the claimed refrigerant system, but does not disclose a control that is operable in the manner claimed. Final Act. 5 (citing Taras 1, Fig. 1). The Examiner relies on Kobayashi as teaching a control that is operable to determine a request for dehumidification without any request for significant change in temperature of the air being delivered into the indoor environment to be conditioned, in which the control starts a reheat mode by initiating a cooling mode for a short period of time in response to such a request. Id. The Examiner explains that, in Kobayashi’s system, when a dehumidification mode is chosen, the controller will begin with an air conditioning operation for a period of time, and then will switch to dehumidification, which prevents condensation from forming on the evaporator. Id. at 5-6 (citing Kobayashi, Claim 1; para. 9). The Examiner additionally finds that the AAPA teaches that reheat circuits provide dehumidification with little or no cooling. Id. at 6; see also Spec., para. 2. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the system of Taras 1, to include a controller as disclosed by Kobayashi, as informed by the teaching of the AAPA, in order to avoid introducing humidity into a controlled room. Id. 6 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 The Examiner finds that Taras I, so modified, does not explicitly disclose that the claimed “short period of time” at which the claimed control is set to operate a cooling mode, is to be greater than thirty seconds and less than five minutes, as claimed. Bloemer is relied on as teaching a dehumidifier that runs a compressor for three minutes for the temperature to drop below a dew point. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the Taras I system, as modified by Kobayashi, to operate in cooling mode for a time period as disclosed by Bloemer. Id. The Examiner further takes the position that, as “it is not clear what the purpose of the 30 seconds to 5 minutes timeframe [as claimed] is supposed to be,” and as Kobayashi addresses the same issues as Appellant’s invention, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to include this limitation because an ordinary artisan would have expected it to perform equally as well as compared to another timeframe. Id. at 6-7. Appellant contends that Kobayashi does not disclose a control that is operable to perform the functions set forth in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. More specifically, Appellant argues that “Kobayashi may be operating in [a] cooling mode, and receive a request for dehumidification, however, Kobayashi would then move to reheat, and not initiate a cooling mode.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, in Kobayashi’s system, the cooling mode is not initiated because once the reheat mode is started, the cooling mode would stop. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner error. Appellant does not direct us to where in Kobayashi there is a disclosure that the cooling mode stops when the reheat mode is started. Kobayashi discloses that, in a method of controlling an air conditioner when a 7 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 dehumidification mode is chosen, the “air conditioning cycle operation is started and shifts to dehumidification cycle.” Kobayashi, Claim 1; see also id. at Claims 8, 9; paras. 12, 19, 20, 35 (“a humidification button is pushed instead of an air conditioning button”), 36. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, when shifting from an air conditioning cycle to a dehumidification cycle, Kobayashi does not disclose stopping the cooling mode but instead discloses that the compressor runs at a low rotational speed so that the refrigerant’s pressure is “uniformized.” Id. at para. 17; see also id. at Claim 6, para. 38 (“[t]his minimum engine speed is a lower limit of a compressor operation coverage, and can be said to be a mechanical minimum engine speed”). Moreover, we note that, similar to Appellant’s disclosure that, by starting initially in a cooling mode, “the refrigerant will be redistributed throughout the refrigerant system 20 and a stable, steady state operating condition can be quickly reached” (Spec., para. 14), Kobayahi discloses “an air conditioner which operates a compressor at low rotational speed so that a pressure of a refrigerant may be made to uniformize” (Kobayashi, Claim 6 (emphasis added)). Further, similar to Appellant’s disclosure that a problem exists with a re-evaporation of condensate accumulating on the surfaces of the evaporator (Spec., para. 3), Kobayashi also recognizes that condensation formed on the surfaces of the indoor heat exchanger may re-evaporate, thereby increasing indoor humidity (Kobayashi, para. 9). Thus, as Kobayashi’s system produces similar effects to those of Appellant’s system, the Kobayashi disclosure of initially running a compressor at a low rotational speed or a minimum engine speed, is seen as a disclosure that the Kobayashi system involves “starting operation of the 8 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 reheat mode of operation by initiating cooling mode of operation for a short period of time” as claimed. Appellant argues that Kobayashi’s system is already operating in a cooling mode when it is being switched to a reheat mode. Appeal Br. 6. However, the control limitations in claims 1 and 8 do not preclude a system that starts a reheat mode when the system is already operating in a cooling mode. “[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[Appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Appellant argues that Kobayashi does not disclose staying in a cooling mode for a short period of time between 30 seconds and 5 minutes. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s contention does not address the rejection as Kobayashi is not specifically relied upon as teaching the particular range of between 30 seconds and 5 minutes. Appellant’s argument further does not address the Examiner’s position that, since Kobayashi addresses the same issues as Appellant’s invention, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to include the limitation of staying in a cooling mode for the claimed length of time, because an ordinary artisan would have expected it to perform equally as well as compared to another timeframe. Ans. 6-7. Appellant contends that Bloemer’s control is for an entirely different function than those of Taras 1 and Kobayashi. Appeal Br. 5. As such, Appellant argues that Taras 1 and Kobayashi cannot be modified based on Bloemer’s control. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Bloemer is based on hindsight. Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 3—4. 9 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. “[Wjhere the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Similar to the systems of Taras 1 and Kobayashi, Bloemer’s system also relates to dehumidification of an interior space. Bloemer, Abstract. As the Examiner points out, “it is not clear what the purpose of the 30 seconds to 5 minutes timeframe [as claimed] is supposed to be,” and as Kobayashi addresses the same issues as Appellant’s invention, it would be an obvious mechanical expedient to include this limitation, because an ordinary artisan would have expected it to perform equally as well as compared to another timeframe. Id. at 6-7; see also Ans. 10. Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to operate the system resulting from the combination of Taras 1, Kobayashi, and the AAPA, so as to have a short time period between 30 seconds and 5 minutes for initiating the cooling mode, as claimed. See Ans. 10. None of Appellant’s arguments apprise us of Examiner error in rejecting claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 8 as unpatentable over Taras 1, Kobayashi, AAPA, and Bloemer. Claim 2 falls with claim 1 and claim 9 falls with claim 8. Claims 3—5, 7—Obviousness—Taras 1/Kobayashi/AAPA/Bloemer/Taras 2 Appellant does not provide any substantive arguments for claims 3-5 and 7, and relies on the arguments presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 1-4. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we 10 Appeal 2016-008752 Application 13/061,616 do not find the combination of Taras 1, Kobayashi, AAPA, and Bloemer to be deficient. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 3-5 and 7 is sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite is reversed. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taras 1, Kobayashi, AAPA, and Bloemer is affirmed. The rejection of claims 3-5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taras 1, Kobayashi, AAPA, Bloemer, and Taras 2 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). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation