Michael D. Newman

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

14259582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
14/259,582 04/23/2014 Michael D. NEWMAN P14A013 1205
20411 7590 09/23/2019
The Linde Group
Law Department
10 Riverview Drive
Danbury, CT 06810-5113
EXAMINER
LEFF, STEVEN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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):
Christine.Connolly@linde.com
Christine.Connolly@linde.com
Praxair_IP@Praxair.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. NEWMAN1
__________

Appeal 2018-007909
Application 14/259,582
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lang et al.2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The real party in interest is said to be Linde Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Brief
dated February 26, 2018 (“Br.”), at 3.
2 US 5,170,631, issued December 15, 1992 (“Lang”).
3 The final rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on
the enablement requirement, was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer dated May 24, 2018 (“Ans.”), at 4.
Appeal 2018-007909
Application 14/259,582

2

The claimed subject matter is directed to an apparatus for reducing the
temperature (e.g., freezing) of a product, such as a food product. The apparatus
comprises a chamber, a plurality of zones in the chamber, a heat transfer apparatus
at each one of the plurality of zones, and a conveyor assembly for transferring a
food product through the plurality of zones. The heat transfer apparatus may be a
fan, a cryogenic spray nozzle, or combinations thereof.
The apparatus also comprises a controller and sensors that communicate
with the controller. The controller stores data of physical characteristics and a heat
transfer profile of a food product to adjust and control the heat transfer rate
atmospheres for the product, whereby the heat transfer rate of the product
decreases as the product is transferred through each one of the plurality of zones.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. An apparatus for reducing the temperature of a product,
comprising:
a housing having a chamber therein, and an inlet and an outlet
in communication with the chamber;
a plurality of zones in the chamber between the inlet and the
outlet, each one of the plurality of zones having a corresponding heat
transfer rate atmosphere and said plurality of zones being arranged in
descending order of heat transfer rate atmospheres from the inlet to
the outlet;
a heat transfer apparatus disposed in the chamber at each one of
the plurality of zones, the heat transfer apparatus selected from at least
one of a fan, a cryogenic spray nozzle, and combinations thereof;
a conveyor assembly for transferring the product from the inlet
through the plurality of zones to the outlet;
a controller in communication with the chamber, the plurality
of zones, the heat transfer apparatus, the conveyor assembly and the
heat transfer rate atmospheres, the controller having stored therein
Appeal 2018-007909
Application 14/259,582

3

data of physical characteristics and a heat transfer profile of the
product to adjust and control the heat transfer rate atmospheres for
the product, such that a heat transfer rate of the product will decrease
as the product is transferred from the inlet through each one of the
plurality of zones to the outlet; and
a sensor disposed at each of the chamber, the plurality of zones,
the heat transfer apparatus, the conveyor assembly and the heat
transfer rate atmospheres, and communicating with the controller for
transeiving signals therewith.
Br. 18–19.
B. DISCUSSION
Lang discloses an apparatus for freezing food products in a chamber using a
combination of mechanical refrigeration and liquid cryogen cooling wherein a
conveyor is utilized to transport food products from a first cryogenic freezing zone
through a second mechanically refrigerated freezing zone. Lang, col. 3, ll. 33–43.
The Examiner finds that Lang’s apparatus comprises each of the elements recited
in claim 1 with the exception of sensors disposed at the locations recited in claim
1, i.e., “disposed at each of the chamber, the plurality of zones, the heat transfer
apparatus, the conveyor assembly and the heat transfer rate atmospheres.” Final
Act. 4.4
The Examiner finds Lang uses sensors within the chamber for adjusting
processing conditions and conveyor speed. Final Act. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds Lang teaches controlling “thermocouples to sense food product
temperature, in addition to teaching providing signals to the controller for
supplying appropriate cryogen flow to the food products.” Final Act. 4–5. Based
on those findings, the Examiner concludes:

4 Final Office Action dated August 7, 2017.
Appeal 2018-007909
Application 14/259,582

4

[S]ince Lang teaches the desire to both sense and achieve a final
product temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art . . . to increase the number of sensor[s] with respect to
the same [claimed] components as taught by Lang and communicating
with the controller for transeiving signals therewith from the
components thus dictating the degree and rate of freezing as
determined by product temperature within the specific areas.
Final Act. 5 (citing Lang, col. 8, ll. 20–26).
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness does
not provide “the necessary underlying reasoning why one of ordinary skill would
be motivated to [increase the number of sensors].” Br. 15–16.
We disagree. As explained by the Examiner, Lang teaches “controlling the
temperatures of the product and thermocouples to sense temperature within each
zone, in addition to teaching providing signals to the controller for supplying
appropriate cryogen flow to the food products and speed of the conveyor.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to increase the number of sensors in Lang’s apparatus, as claimed, to ensure that
the food products are cooled to the desired temperature.5 Ans. 6; see also id.

5 As for the claimed positions of the sensors, claim 1 recites that a sensor is
“disposed at each of the chamber, the plurality of zones, the heat transfer
apparatus, the conveyor assembly and the heat transfer rate atmospheres.” Br. 18–
19. The Appellant discloses that the chamber contains several zones, wherein at
least one heat transfer apparatus is disposed in each zone and each zone has a
corresponding heat transfer rate atmosphere. Spec. ¶ 18. The conveyor assembly
travels through the chamber and thus travels through each of the zones in the
chamber. Spec. ¶ 20. The sole Figure in the instant Application identifies four
sensors 50 each positioned in chamber 18 adjacent heat transfer apparatus 36 and
above conveyor 24 in zones 1–4 and one sensor 50 positioned in chamber 18 above
heat transfer apparatus 34 and conveyor 24 in zone 2. Thus, reading claim 1 in
light of the Specification, it would appear that claim 1 does not require separate
sensors in the chamber, in each zone, at each heat transfer apparatus, at the
conveyor assembly, and in each heat transfer rate atmosphere. See In re Icon
Appeal 2018-007909
Application 14/259,582

5

(pointing out that the Appellant “has not provided reasons why Lang teaches away
from additional sensors”).
The Appellant also argues:
[I]t is not only the “sensor disclosed at each of the chamber, the
plurality of zones, the heat transfer apparatus, etc.” as called for in
claim 1, but rather, the co-action of the zones with respect to the
controller which efficiently reduces the temperature of a product
through a plurality of zones being arranged in descending order of
heat transfer rate responsive to the controller having stored therein
data of physical characteristics and a heat transfer profile of the
product to adjust and control the heat transfer rate atmospheres for the
product. Such subject matter is neither disclosed in nor alluded to by
Lang.
Br. 16.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 1
recites that the controller stores data “to adjust and control the heat transfer rate
atmospheres for the product, such that a heat transfer rate of the product will
decrease as the product is transferred from the inlet through each one of the
plurality of zones to the outlet.” Br. 18.
The Examiner finds Lang teaches a master control panel, corresponding to
the claimed controller, in communication with the chamber. Ans. 5 (citing Lang,
col. 8, ll. 8–10); see also Lang, col. 8, ll. 7–12 (disclosing that the master control
panel includes an adjustable cryogen temperature control unit that responds to
either one or both of two thermocouples disposed adjacent the entrance and exit
openings for the first freezing zone).
Lang discloses that an advantage of the disclosed apparatus

Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (during
examination, claims must be given “their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification”).
Appeal 2018-007909
Application 14/259,582

6

is the capacity to adjust or tailor the process to the particular food
products being frozen in order to achieve the most favorable balance
of cryogenic freezing and mechanical refrigeration freezing.
Depending on the mass of the product, the thickness and the incoming
temperature, there may be more or less cryogenic cooling required to
cool the product quickly to at or near the 32° F. level.
Lang, col. 10, ll. 14–21.
The Examiner finds Lang discloses a first freezing zone cooled by liquid
cryogen producing temperatures of –110°F or below and a second freezing zone
cooled by mechanical refrigeration. Ans. 5. Lang discloses that “[i]t is possible
with the combination freezer of the present invention to use only that amount of
cryogen necessary to accomplish the rapid initial chilling of the food product,
while relying on the less costly mechanical refrigeration to complete the freezing of
the product.” Lang, col. 10, ll. 22–27 (emphasis added). Based on that disclosure
in Lang, the Examiner finds that the heat transfer rate of the product decreases as
the product is transferred from the inlet to the outlet of the chamber as claimed.
Ans. 3 (citing Lang, col. 10, ll. 18–26). The Appellant does not direct us to any
evidence establishing otherwise.
In sum, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. The Appellant does not present arguments in support
of the separate patentability of any of dependent claims 2–6. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1–6 is sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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)(1).
AFFIRMED