Ex Parte Woolley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2016

12991292 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/991,292 11/05/2010 Lance D. Woolley
54549 7590 07/26/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA5153US:67097-1504US1 7751
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2016 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LANCED. WOOLLEY and PETERS. MATTESON
Appeal 2014-006681 1,2
Application 12/991,292
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 5,
2010), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Dec. 30, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed May 22, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action "(Final
Action," mailed July 30, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed Apr. 7, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is ... United
Technologies Corporation." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006681
Application 12/991,292
According to Appellants, the invention "relates generally to vapor
expansion systems and, more particularly, to a method and apparatus for
reducing transient thermal stress in a condenser thereof." Spec. ,-r 1.
Independent claims 1 and 8 are the only independent claims under
appeal. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduced claim 1, below, as
representative of the appealed claims.
1. A method of reducing the maximum temperature
load in a tube and shell condenser of a closed loop refrigerant
expansion system, comprising the steps of:
providing a pump for pumping liquid refrigerant from the
condenser to an evaporator during normal operation;
a turbine being provided between said condenser and said
evaporator, and driving a generator;
sensing when the system is shut down and responsively
causing the liquid refrigerant to flow in reverse from the
evaporator to the condenser to thereby both reduce the amount
of refrigerant vapor passing to the condenser and increase the
amount of liquid refrigerant in the condenser; and
the step of causing the flow to reverse is accomplished by
one of (a) operating said pump in reverse, or (b) opening a bypass
valve to allow the refrigerant to flow around said pump.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brasz (US 2004/0255593 Al, pub. Dec. 23,
2004), Yanagida (JP 04113172 A, pub. Apr. 14, 1992), and Sundel
(US 2006/0116036 Al, pub. June 1, 2006).
2
Appeal2014-006681
Application 12/991,292
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brasz, Yanagida, Sundel, and Alsenz (US 6,000,231, iss.
Dec. 14, 1999).
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brasz, Yanagida, Sundel, and Mann
(US 2009/0107159 Al, pub. Apr. 30, 2009).
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Brasz, Yanagida, Sundel, and Lawrance (US 3,020,024,
iss. Feb. 6, 1962).
See Final Action 2-8; see also Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites
sensing when the system is shut down and responsively
causing the liquid refrigerant to flow in reverse from the
evaporator to the condenser to thereby both reduce the amount
of refrigerant vapor passing to the condenser and increase the
amount of liquid refrigerant in the condenser; and
the step of causing the flow to reverse is accomplished by
one of (a) operating said pump in reverse, or (b) opening a bypass
valve to allow the refrigerant to flow around said pump.
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Brasz teaches causing a
liquid refrigerant to flow in reverse from an evaporator to a condenser by
operating a pump in reverse (relative to normal operation), but does not
disclose causing the reverse flow in response to sensing that the system is
shut down. See Final Action 2-3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
"Yanagida teaches sensing when the system is shut down and responsively
causing the liquid refrigerant to flow in reverse from the evaporator to the
3
Appeal2014-006681
Application 12/991,292
condenser to thereby both reduce the amount of refrigerant vapor passing to
the condenser and increase the amount of liquid refrigerant in the
condenser." Id. at 3.
According to Appellants, however, the Examiner errs in relying on
Yanagida to disclose reversing flow in response to sensing shutdown. In
particular, Appellants state "[t]he Examiner relies on Yanagida to disclose a
reverse flow at shutdown. However, Yanagida discloses a heat pump. A
heat pump has a valve that routes refrigerant from a compressor in two
different directions depending on whether the heat pump is in a heating or
cooling mode." Based on our review, we determine that the Examiner fails
to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Yanagida discloses
reversing flow in response to sensing shutdown, as opposed to reversing
flow based on an operating mode of the heat pump. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent claim 8 recites limitations similar to those discussed
above with respect to claim 1, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 8 for reasons similar to those discussed above. Further, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 2-7 (depending from claim 1) and
claims 9-14 (depending from claim 8), for the same reasons as the
independent claims and because the Examiner does not establish that any
other reference remedies the deficiency in the rejection of the independent
claims.
4
Appeal2014-006681
Application 12/991,292
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-14.
REVERSED
5