Carrier CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 13, 20212020003909 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation