Ex Parte Guldali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

11575488 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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