Ex Parte Arote et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 201312025136 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/025,136 02/04/2008 Richard Arote AR 537.002 1730 53437 7590 11/26/2013 ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ, P.A. P.O. BOX 221470 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022 EXAMINER GONZALEZ, PAOLO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/26/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICHARD AROTE and NICK COTUMACCIO ____________________ Appeal 2012-000486 Application 12/025,136 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000486 Application 12/025,136 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morton (US 4,564,746, iss. Jan. 14, 1986) and Light (US 6,398,196 B1, iss. Jun. 4, 2002).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Claim 7 is the sole independent claim and reads: 7. A vertical heat pump comprising: a vertical fan coil housing containing a fan, a coil, and a discharge plenum; a cavity formed within said fan coil housing; a humidity steam generator disposed within said cavity; a steam dispersion tube being mounted within an airstream to be generated by said fan, for delivering steam via said discharge plenum; a steam transfer tube for connecting said steam generator to said steam dispersion tube. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Morton discloses “a vertical heat pump (10)” comprising the bulk of the elements of claim 7 but lacking the claimed coil. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Light discloses “a vertical heat pump (10) comprising air conditioning coils (26)” and concludes: 1 The Examiner also cites as evidence McQuiston et al., Heat Pump Systems and Heat Pump Types, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning: Analysis and Design, 6th edition, pp. 41-42, John Wiley & Sons (2005). Appeal 2012-000486 Application 12/025,136 3 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify [the] Morton system to have a[n] air conditioning coil and a hygrometer as in view of Light so as to have the expected result of conditioning the air passing [through] the coil, thus improving the occupants[’] comfort level and so as improve the control efficiency of the system, thus reducing energy cost of operating the system. Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reason for combining the references is not based on an apparent reason and the Examiner has not articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness as required by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). App. Br. 7, 11-13; see also Reply Br. 4-5. Specifically, Appellants argue that “it would be counterproductive to supply air conditioning while trying to humidify the air,” and providing a steam humidifier with air conditioning coils would reduce, not improve, its efficiency and also increase the energy cost of operating the system. App. Br. 7. In response, the Examiner indicates that the stated reasons for combining the air conditioning coil of Light with the steam humidifier of Morton, (i.e., improved efficiency and reduced energy costs) are supported by lines 19-58 in column 1 of Light. Ans. 8. However, the cited passage from Light does not state or suggest that providing air conditioning coils on a heater and humidifying system would improve efficiency or reduce energy costs of that system. Therefore, the Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning, a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine the air conditioning coil of Light with the steam humidifier of Morton. We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-12. Appeal 2012-000486 Application 12/025,136 4 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 7-12. REVERSED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation