Ex Parte Taras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2018

13989080 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/989,080 05/23/2013 Michael F. Taras
87059 7590 05/18/2018
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.
57477US02 (U350240US2) 1032
EXAMINER
CLASS-QUINONES, JOSE 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2018 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
Exparte MICHAEL F. TARAS and MARKI. PERKOVICH
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, and 17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, their invention relates "to improving
condensate drainage and corrosion durability on gas cooler/condenser heat
exchangers of transport refrigeration units." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is the sole
1 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Carrier
Corporation." Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims (formatting added).
1. A transport refrigeration unit for conditioning air
within a refrigerated cargo box for housing perishable goods
during transport, comprising:
a refrigerant heat rejection heat exchanger and a fan
operatively associated with the heat exchanger, the refrigerant
heat rejection heat exchanger including
a wraparound finned tube coil extending along a periphery
radially outboard of the fan, the wraparound finned tube coil
having
a plurality of heat exchange tube loops and a plurality of
plate fins mounted to the plurality of heat exchange tube loops,
each heat exchange tube loop formed by
a plurality of linear tube segments connected by tube
bends, each linear tube segment extending longitudinally at an
inclination angle with respect to vertical of at least 20 degrees.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 2, 5, and 17 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kirkpatrick (US 2,363,974, iss. Nov. 28, 1944), Ares
(US 3,759,321, iss. Sept. 18, 1973), and Allington (US 623,348,
iss. Apr. 18, 1899.);
II. claims 3 and 4 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kirkpatrick, Ares, Allington, and Modine (US 1,553,093, iss.
Sept. 8, 1925);
2
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
III. claim 8 under U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kirkpatrick,
Ares, Allington, and Jia et al. (US 2005/0279127 Al, pub.
Dec. 22, 2005);
IV. claim 9 under U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kirkpatrick,
Ares, Allington, and Lorentzen et al. (US 5,497,631, iss.
Mar. 12, 1996);
V. claims 10 and 11 under U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kirkpatrick, Ares, Allington, and Wilson et al. (US 5,660,050,
iss. Aug. 26, 1997); and
VI. claim 12 under U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kirkpatrick, Ares, Allington, and Evans (US 4,550,694, iss.
Nov. 5, 1985).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Based on our review of the record, including Appellants' Appeal
Brief, and the Examiner's Final Office Action and Answer, Appellants do
not persuade us that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, and 17 as
obvious based on Kirkpatrick, Ares, and Allington. Thus, we sustain the
rejection.
Appellants first argue as follows:
The Office Action cites to Ares as disclosing a refrigerant heat
rejection heat exchanger having a wraparound finned tube coil
extending along a periphery radially outboard of the fan.
[Appellants] submit[] that the refrigerant heat rejection heat
exchanger of Ares would not be of use in the system of
Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick is directed to a transport refrigeration
unit that is portable, lighter and more compact (see page 1,
3
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
column 1, lines 16-21 ). Ares is directed to a split system, or heat
pump, having an outdoor unit having a compressor 48 and
fan 42/44 positioned inside a condenser coil 16a/16b. The
system of Ares is designed for residential use, where the
condenser coil and compressor are located outside ( see Ares,
column 1, lines 1-10). The condenser coil 16a/16b of Ares is
large and would not be logically or predictably incorporated into
the Kirkpatrick transport refrigeration unit. Kirkpatrick
discloses a portable, lighter and more compact system, and the
condenser coil-fan of Ares would be directly contrary to
Kirkpatrick.
Br. 4--5. This argument is insufficient to persuade us, however, that it would
not have been obvious to combine Kirkpatrick and Ares as the Examiner
proposes. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
[those] references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425, (CCPA 1981). In this case, we agree with
the Examiner that, "considering the teachings of Ares as a whole, a person
skilled in the art at the time of invention would know how to modify the
system of Kirkpatrick as to incorporate a wraparound coil having a plurality
of tube loops and fins extending around a fan." Answer 5. Thus, this
argument is not persuasive.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner's proposed modification
based on Ares is improper because the proposed modification would result
in "the hot air dispelled from the condenser coil of Ares [being] directed to
undesirable locations in Kirkpatrick," and, thus, the "modification of
Kirkpatrick would be directly contrary to the teachings of Kirkpatrick[, as it
would] not result in exhausting warm air out [Kirkpatrick's] vent 72." Br. 5.
4
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
Appellants correctly state that "if [a] proposed modification would render
the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed
modification." Id. ( citation omitted). Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, however, because Appellants' remarks are insufficient to
persuade us either that Kirkpatrick's "intended purpose" is to "exhaust[]
warm air out vent 72," or that the Examiner's proposal to "modify
Kirkpatrick by replacing Kirkpatrick's condenser with the heat rejection heat
exchanger including a wraparound finned tube coil ... as taught by Ares"
(Final Action 4--5) would result in an arrangement in which warm air is not
exhausted out of Kirkpatrick's vent 72 (see Answer 5---6). Thus, this
argument is not persuasive.
Similarly, Appellants also argue that the Examiner's proposed
modification based on Allington is improper because
the air flow over the pipes in Allington is in all directions, which
is inconsistent with the disclosure of Kirkpatrick. Thus, one
would not use the tubes of Allington in the system of Kirkpatrick,
as the hot air dispelled from the coil of Allington would be
directed to undesirable locations in Kirkpatrick. This
modification of Kirkpatrick would be directly contrary to the
teachings of Kirkpatrick and not result in exhausting warm air
out vent 72.
Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive, however, because Appellants'
remarks are insufficient to persuade us either that Kirkpatrick's "intended
purpose" is to "exhaust[] warm air out vent 72," or that the Examiner's
proposal to orient "each linear tube segment extending longitudinally at an
inclination angle with respect to vertical in order to achieve effective
drainage as to prevent accumulation of water in the outside of the tube" in
5
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
accordance with Allington's disclosure (Answer 6) (citation omitted) would
result in an arrangement in which warm air is not exhausted out of
Kirkpatrick's vent 72 (See id. at 6-7). We note, for example, that
Allington ... was relied upon for the teachings of having inclined
tube segments in a heat exchanger . . . . In other words, the
further modification of Kirkpatrick in view of Allington' s
teachings would only result in having the heat rejection heat
exchanger of Kirkpatrick as modified by Ares having each linear
tube segment extending longitudinally at an inclination angle
with respect to vertical in order to achieve effective drainage as
to prevent accumulation of water in the outside of the tube (per
Allington).
Id. at 6 (citation omitted). Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue that the rejection is in error because
Allington is directed to a heating apparatus having a fan located
in the center of pipes that carry steam for heating. The pipes may
be angled to drain water from the interior of the pipes (see page 4,
lines 1-5). The system of Allington is not at all relevant to the
refrigeration system of Kirkpatrick. Allington is directed to
heating, not cooling. Allington circulates steam in the pipes for
heating purposes.
Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner, however, that it would have been
obvious to modify Kirkpatrick based on Allington, inasmuch as preventing
accumulation of water is a concern in both heating and cooling systems. See
Answer 6-7; see Final Action 5---6; see Allington p. 3, 1. 131-p. 4, 1. 5.
Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Rejections II-V
Appellants do not argue separately that the rejections of dependent
claims 3, 4, and 8-12 are in error. See Br. 6. Thus, inasmuch as we sustain
claim 1 's obviousness rejection, we also sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4,
and 8-12.
6
Appeal2017-008946
Application 13/989,080
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-5, 8-
12, and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7