Ex Parte Weidlich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2014

12162644 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOCHEN WEIDLICH, DOMINIQUE JOUVAUD,
MICHEL KOSTELITZ, and SERGE MOREL-JEAN
____________

Appeal 2012-005939
Application 12/162,6441
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 9–19, all pending claims of the subject application.
Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is L’AIR LIQUIDE
SOCIETE ANONYME POUR L’ETUDE ET L’EXPLOITATION DES
PROCEDES GEORGES CLAUDE. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-005939
Application 12/162,644

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 14,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
14. A method for the operation and management of a
fleet of refrigerated containers for transporting perishables,
which containers are able to be supplied with a chilling fluid,
the method comprising the steps of:
- furnishing each of the refrigerated containers with a
passive Tag comprising an item of information identifying the
refrigerated container, an active Tag comprising a temperature
probe, and a recorder linked to said temperature probe and able
to record temperature values measured by said temperature
probe;
- providing a supply element adapted and configured to
supply the refrigerated container with chilling fluid, said supply
element being furnished with a device able to read the passive
Tag of the refrigerated container, so as in particular to take
cognizance of an identification number of the passive Tag
concerned;
- providing a data acquisition and processing unit, and
the following operations are performed with the aid of said data
acquisition and processing unit:
- receiving said identification number from said
device, and linking the identification number with a
number of the active Tag situated in the refrigerated
container;
- calculating a quantity of chilling fluid to be
injected into the refrigerated container by taking account
of one or more data related to a logistic journey of the
refrigerated container, to the structural and insulation
characteristics of the refrigerated container, and to the
physical data of the chilling fluid used;
- prescribing said supply element the
characteristics of the chilling fluid injection to be carried
out into the refrigerated container.
Appeal 2012-005939
Application 12/162,644

3
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Bartilucci US 5,363,670 Nov. 15, 1994
Boertz US 5,823,234 Oct. 20, 1998
Werb US 6,483,427 B1 Nov. 19, 2002
Vander Woude US 2003/0029179 A1 Feb. 13, 2003
Shaw US 6,563,417 B1 May 13, 2003
Claims 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaw, Vander Woude, Bartilucci, and Boertz.
Claims 9–13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaw, Vander Woude, and Bartilucci.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaw, Vander Woude, Bartilucci, Boertz, and Werb.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 14–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that the Shaw reference discloses “a method for
the operation and management of a fleet of refrigerated containers for
transporting perishables” that are “able to be supplied with a chilling fluid
. . . .” Ans. 6, citing Shaw Abstract, Fig. 3. The Examiner concedes that
Shaw “does not disclose the limitation [of claim 14] related to a supply
element delivering the refrigerant,” but finds that Vander Woude teaches a
“supply element adapted and configured to supply the refrigerated container
with chilling fluid . . . .” Ans. 8 (citation omitted).
Appeal 2012-005939
Application 12/162,644

4
The Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill[] in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the
method of Shaw so as to use [such] a device to fill in the refrigerant into the
container and the device can also be used as a handheld interrogator.”2 Id. at
89. The Examiner goes on to explain that “[f]illing the measured amount
of residential oil from a truck (loaded with a pump and a flexible hose . . .)
into a house oil tank is a well[-]known practice,” and that the “[c]ontainer
needs to be filled with the refrigerant and using such a flexible system to
supply the refrigerant to the container is economical since so doing could be
performed readily and easily by any person of ordinary skill in the art . . . .”
Id. at 9. In other words, the Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill
in the art, faced with the problem of how to supply refrigerant to the
refrigerated containers of Shaw, would have looked to the supply element of
Vander Woude because that supply element is an economical way to deliver
refrigerant that can also be used as a handheld interrogator.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner has failed to set forth a
rationale for modifying Shaw to include the supply element of Vander
Woude that passes muster under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). We agree. Although the standard for combining references is
flexible, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988

2 Claim 14 requires that the “supply element” be “furnished with a device
able to read the passive Tag of the refrigerated container,” (i.e., an
interrogator).
Appeal 2012-005939
Application 12/162,644

5
(Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the rationale set forth by the Examiner is
fundamentally flawed because Shaw does not teach “a fleet of refrigerated
containers for transporting perishables” that are “able to be supplied with a
chilling fluid.” See Ans. 6 (citation omitted, emphasis added). The Shaw
reference does not discuss refrigerated containers or chilling fluid. The
Shaw reference never even uses the words “refrigerated,” “chilling,” or
“perishables.” Thus, there is no rational underpinning for the Examiner’s
finding that the Shaw reference would have led a person of ordinary skill in
the art to search for an economical way of delivering coolant. There is also
no basis for the Examiner’s finding that the supply element of Vander
Woude can be used as a handheld interrogator. The Vander Woude
reference does not relate to interrogators, and the Examiner cites no
evidence that the supply element of Vander Woude could function as an
interrogator.
Because the Examiner has failed to articulate reasoning with a rational
underpinning for modifying Shaw to include the supply element of Vander
Woude in the manner the Examiner relies on to reject claim 14, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Appellants’ contentions regarding claim 14 present additional issues.
We are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed
supra, which is dispositive as to claim 14. We, therefore, do not reach the
additional issues.
Dependent claims 15 and 16 depend from claim 14, and thus
incorporate all limitations of claim 14. Thus, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 and 16.
Appeal 2012-005939
Application 12/162,644

6
Rejection of Claims 9–13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 relies on the
Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to modify Shaw to include the supply element of Vander Woude.
Ans. 13–16, 27. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9.
Dependent claims 10–13 and 17 all depend from claim 9, and thus
incorporate all limitations of claim 9. Thus, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–13, 17.
Rejection of Claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent claims 18 and 19 ultimately depend from and incorporate
the limitations of independent claims 9 and 14, respectively. Thus, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19.

DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 9–19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

llw