Carrier Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2021

2020003909 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021)

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.
14/794,339 07/08/2015 Raymond L. Senf 71326US02 (U300201US2) 3487
87059 7590 01/13/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
SULLENS, TAVIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2021 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
Ex parte RAYMOND L. SENF, MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE, and
JOHN R. REASON
Appeal 2020-003909
Application 14/794,339
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Carrier
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003909
Application 14/794,339

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a refrigeration system. Claim 12,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A transport refrigeration system comprising:
a compressor having a suction port, a discharge port and
an intermediate inlet port located at an intermediate location
along a compression path between the compressor suction port
and the compressor discharge port;
a heat rejecting heat exchanger downstream of the
compressor discharge port;
an economizer heat exchanger having a first refrigerant
flow path and a second refrigerant flow path therethrough;
an evaporator expansion device downstream of the first
refrigerant flow path;
an evaporator having an inlet coupled to the evaporator
expansion device and an outlet coupled to a compressor inlet
path, the compressor inlet path coupled to the compressor
suction port, the evaporator for cooling a compartment of a
container;
an economizer expansion device coupled to the first
refrigerant flow path, the economizer expansion device
directing refrigerant from the first refrigerant flow path to the
second refrigerant flow path, the second refrigerant flow path
coupled to the intermediate inlet port; and
a controller configured to control the economizer
expansion device to regulate flow of refrigerant along the
second refrigerant flow path to the intermediate inlet port, the
controller configured to control the economizer expansion
device in response to an electrical parameter of the refrigeration
system;
wherein the electrical parameter of the refrigeration
system includes one or more of output current of a generator,
output voltage of a generator, current draw of the compressor,
input voltage at the compressor, current draw of a heat rejecting
heat exchanger fan, input voltage at the heat rejecting heat
Appeal 2020-003909
Application 14/794,339

3
exchanger fan, current draw of an evaporator fan, input voltage
at the evaporator fan, current draw of a heater and input voltage
at the heater;
wherein:
control of the economizer expansion device in
response to the electrical parameter of the refrigeration
system includes:
comparing the electrical parameter to a limit;
operating the economizer expansion device in a
full economized mode when the electrical parameter does
not exceed the limit; and
operating the economizer expansion device in a
limited economized mode when the electrical parameter
does exceed the limit, the limited economized mode
including restricting an opening and closing range of the
economizer expansion device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Senf US 2012/0247138 A1 Oct. 4, 2012
Awwad WO 2008/094158 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Senf.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Awwad and Senf.2

2 The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn because that claim has been
canceled. Ans. 16. The Examiner lists the rejection of claim 1 and that of
claim 12 under separate headings. See Final Act. 7, 13.
Appeal 2020-003909
Application 14/794,339

4
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments disputing the Examiner’s findings
regarding Senf with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 12. Appeal
Br. 5–7. Appellant relies on the same arguments for the patentability of
claim 1. Id. at 7–8. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant does not address, or even
acknowledge the obviousness rejection of claim 12.3 See, e.g., id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Senf discloses a controller for its economizer
device that is configured to provide the economizer control features as
recited in claim 12. Final Act. 5–7. This is the only issue disputed by
Appellant in this appeal. Specifically, Appellant contends that “Senf fails to
disclose . . . the control of the economizer expansion device in a limited
economized mode.” Appeal Br. 5.
The relevant portion of claim 12 recites that the economizer control
includes “operating the economizer expansion device in a limited
economized mode when the electrical parameter does exceed the limit, the
limited economized mode including restricting an opening and closing range
of the economizer expansion device” (hereinafter “the disputed feature”).
There is no dispute that the “limited economized mode” is simply something
other than the “full economized mode” also referenced in the claim.
The Examiner cites paragraph 48 of Senf, for example, as disclosing
the disputed feature. Final Act. 6–7. Senf explains that
adaptive control of the economizer 240 . . . compare[s] a current
system characteristic to a threshold system characteristic and
calculate[s] a next operating level . . . of a system component

3 In the Reply Brief, Appellant attempts, for the first time, to address the
obviousness rejection of claim 12. Reply Br. 2–5. We do not consider those
new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Appeal 2020-003909
Application 14/794,339

5
like the economizer 240, which may be slightly, somewhat or
significantly higher (or lower) that the current operating level of
the economizer 240.
Senf ¶ 48. Senf further explains that its “adaptive control in operation block
480 does not allow the next operating level (e.g., of the economizer 240) to
be set at a value that can cause the error condition (e.g., any monitored error
condition)” and expressly states that “[t]he next operating level can be
evaluated to determine if the next operating level is equal to the 100%
economized level (operation block 485).” Id. That is, Senf describes an
example where “adaptive control in operation block 480 does not allow . . .
100% economized level,” which means it restricts its economizer to
something other than the full (i.e., 100%) economized level. Id.
Appellant repeatedly alleges that “Senf does not disclose . . . the
limited economized mode including restricting an opening and closing range
of the economizer expansion device” (Appeal Br. 5–6) because “Senf tries to
get the economizer device 240 to a full, or 100%, status” (id. at 7).
Although Appellant alleges that “Senf provides no disclosure of limiting the
range of the economizer device 240 during the processing in blocks
480/485,” this is contrary to the express disclosure of Senf reproduced
above. Appeal Br. 6. By not allowing a full economized level for
economizer 240, Senf “operat[es] the economizer expansion device in a
limited economized mode . . . including restricting an opening and closing
range of the economizer expansion device,” as required by claim 12.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 12. For similar reasons, we are also not
apprised of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003909
Application 14/794,339

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12 102 Senf 12
1, 12 103 Awwad, Senf 1, 12
Overall
Outcome
1, 12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED