Ex Parte Guldali et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201711575488 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017) 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. 11/575,488 03/16/2007 Yalcin Guldali 101670-0417277 8462 20350 7590 06/02/2017 KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P EXAMINER Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street COMINGS, DANIEL C Suite 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER Atlanta, UA 5U5UV 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YALCIN GULDALI, ERTUGRUL USTUNDAG, and SABAHATTIN HOCAOGLU Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Yalcin Guldali et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 21—30. Claims 7—20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention relates to a cooling device in which the cooling cycle is improved. Spec. para. 1. Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 Claim 1,21, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A cooling device comprising one or more cooling cabinets in which items to be cooled are stored, a compressor which compresses a refrigerant, a condenser which by condensing enables a superheated vapor leaving the compressor to change to first a liquid-vapor phase then a liquid phase forming a condensed fluid entirely, a compressor cabinet into which the compressor and the condenser are positioned separately from the cooling cabinet, one or more evaporators to which the condensed fluid is delivered and absorbing heat of a medium enabling cooling of the medium and enabling cooling of the cooling cabinets by the refrigerant absorbing the heat of the medium, and characterized by at least two temperature sensors that detect the temperature inside the compressor cabinet and/or the cooling cabinet and a heater positioned in the compressor cabinet which is activated or deactivated according to the difference between temperature values detected by the temperature sensors. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev (SU 1716275 Al, pub. Feb. 29, 1992) in view of Kil (US 6,029,464, iss. Feb. 29, 2000); (ii) claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev in view of Kil and Suzuki (US 5,704,219, iss. Jan. 6, 1998); (iii) claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev in view of Kil and Tomasov (US 5,150,584, iss. Sept. 29, 1992); 2 Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 (iv) claims 21—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev in view of Kil and Tomasov; (v) claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev in view of Kil and Ratcliff (US 2,581,044, issued Jan. 1, 1952); (vi) claims 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev in view of Kil and Suzuki; and (vii) claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreev in view of Kil and Tomasov. Appellants canceled claims 7 and 8 in an Amendment filed subsequent to the Final Office Action on June 16, 2014. That Amendment was entered in an Advisory Action dated July 10, 2014. As such, the rejections of now-canceled claims 7 and 8 that are present in the Final Office Action are moot, notwithstanding that the Examiner’s Answer does not identity the rejections as having been withdrawn. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 2—Obviousness—Andreev/Kil Appellants argue claims 1 and 2 as a group. Appeal Br. 11—20; see also Reply Br. 2—11. We take claim 1 as representative of this group, and claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Andreev discloses most of the limitations of claim 1 including a compressor 2 which compresses a refrigerant, a condenser 3, one or more evaporators 5, and a heater 6. Final Act. 5 (citing 3 Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 Andreev, Fig. 1, and the Derwent English abstract of Andreev). The Examiner determines that it is inherent that Andreev’s compressor and condenser are located separate from evaporator(s) in a cooling cabinet, as is well known in the art, because otherwise, “the heat rejected from the condenser and heater and the heat generated by the compressor will heat the space to be cooled, thus destroying the cooling effect of the system.” Id. The Examiner relies on Kil as teaching a refrigeration device having two temperature sensors in the form of a room temperature detecting means for detecting the room temperature cooled by an evaporator, and an outdoor temperature detecting means for detecting the environment temperature into which the condenser rejects heat. Id. at 6. The Examiner additionally finds that Kil teaches “an outdoor heat exchanger (condenser) cooling fan operated on the basis of the difference between the sensed room temperature and a user established temperature.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Andreev with the temperature difference based control of Kil and to apply this control also to the heater of Andreev in order to better model the operating conditions of the cooling system in order to improve performance and efficiency of the system by better controlling the heat rejection of the condenser thus also enhancing the performance of the system as a whole. Id. at 6—7. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in not considering the Kil reference as a whole, including portions that allegedly lead away from the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 13—16. More specifically, Appellants maintain that “[t]he Office Action admits that Kil teaches and operates in 4 Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 condition ‘where frost would not occur regardless of the refrigerant, ’ but inexplicably fails to include Kil’s required teaching that it is used only in conditions ‘where frost would not occur regardless of the refrigerant.’” Id. at 15; see also Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue that it would thus not be obvious to combine Kil with the Andreev invention “since Kil requires a condition for ‘where frost would not occur regardless of the refrigerant’ yet the Andreev invention does not work since the formation of snow[frost] is a prerequisite to the closing of the contact.” Appeal Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 7. Appellants characterize the combination of Kil with Andreev as being improper either as a teaching away from the Andreev invention, or that the combination would destroy the operation of the Andreev invention. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 8. The Examiner responds that Andreev is modified by adding to it the temperature sensing and control arrangement of Kil in order to improve system performance and efficiency. Ans. 17. The Examiner posits that a feature of the primary reference that would not be necessary to the secondary reference does not negate the usefulness of all features of the secondary reference to the system of the primary reference. Id. The Examiner also points out that Appellants have made no arguments that point to error in the Examiner’s articulated reason to combine the teachings of Andreev and Kil, but instead argue that the system of Kil would not require all features of Andreev. See id. at 17—18. Appellants’ arguments do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, which relies on Kil’s teaching of temperature detecting means for improving performance and efficiency. See Final Act. 6—7. Moreover, 5 Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 even if Kil describes the use of its apparatus in a frostless environment and Andreev describes the use of its apparatus in an environment where there is frost formation, that does not mean that Kil’s apparatus, and more particularly, its temperature detecting means relied on by the Examiner, would not be suitable for operation in a different environment such as that of Andreev’s. Appellants have not provided any evidence or persuasive argument to this effect; the arguments simply identify one difference in operation, without consideration of the manner in which the references are applied by the Examiner. Further, Kil does not teach away from the combination, as argued by Appellants, in that Kil does not discredit, criticize, or disparage the use of its temperature detecting means in an environment in which frost formation is a possibility. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[w]e will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.”). Appellants’ argument that a combination of Kil with Andreev would destroy the operation of Andreev’s invention is nothing more than a bald assertion. Appellants’ continued focus on whether frost may or may not occur simply fails to recognize what aspects of Kil are proposed to be used to modify Andreev. As the Examiner advises, “the question of adding frost removal to the system of Kil has no bearing [on, and is] irrelevant [to the] instant rejection,” because Appellants have “focused entirely on arguing against modifying Kil with the defroster of Andreev which is not the modification on which the rejection of claim 1 is based.” Ans. 20. 6 Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 Appellants additionally argue, referring to Andreev’s disclosure that “[vjapours pass via tube (4) to evaporator (5) and are partially condensed,” that therefore, “Andreev does not teach the present invention of keeping the condensed liquid since its operation leads to a vapor phase which can lead to ‘vapor block.’” Appeal. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 11. We note that claim 1 does not require keeping the condensed liquid as a measure to prevent vapor block. “[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[AJppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). None of Appellants’ arguments apprise us of Examiner error in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Andreev and Kil, with claim 2 falling with claim 1. Claims 3 and 6, 27 and 30—Obviousness—Andreev/Kil/Suzuki Claims 4, 5, 21—24, 28 and 29—Obviousness—Andreev/Kil/Tomasov Claims 25 and 26—Obviousness—Andreev/Kil/Ratcliff Appellants do not provide any substantive arguments for claims 3—6 and 21—30, and rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 11—14. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do not find the combination of Andreev and Kil to be deficient. Appellants point out that, with respect to the rejection of claims 28 and 29, the Examiner made reference to method claims 7 and 8 whereas 7 Appeal 2016-001057 Application 11/575,488 claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 25, which is instead an apparatus claim. See Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 13. The Examiner replies that the reference to claims 7 and 8 was clearly a typographical error, as claims 28 and 29 are clearly equivalent to apparatus claims 4 and 5. See Ans. 21. Appellants do not further contest the Examiner’s position. Reply Br. 13. Because Appellants do not argue substantively against the rejection of claims 28 and 29, we find the Examiner’s reference to claims 7 and 8 instead of to claims 4 and 5 to be harmless error. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 3—6 and 21—30 are sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6 and 21—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation