Ex Parte HahnDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201612203164 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/203,164 09/03/2008 26096 7590 08/01/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory W. Hahn 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 60298-613; ST 347 2661 EXAMINER GONZALEZ, PAOLO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY W. HAHN Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203, 164 Technology Center 3700 Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Gregory W. Hahn ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 as unpatentable over Christensen (US 2008/ 0134701 Al, pub. June 12, 2008), Lifson (WO 2006/132638 Al, pub. Dec. 14, 2006), and He (US 2005/0103035 Al, pub. May 19, 2005). 2 The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Danfoss Scroll Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 7, 11, 16, and 20-25. Ans. 2. Thus, there is no rejection of these claims for us to review. Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203,164 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and it recites: 1. A compressor comprising: a motor for a compressor pump unit, and said compressor pump unit and said motor being housed within a shell, said shell having a sump for maintaining a quantity of lubricant; a control for said compressor, said control being programmed to operate the motor in at least one low capacity and at least one higher capacity, said control also being operable to estimate a quantity of oil which will have migrated from said compressor shell at least when said compressor is operating at said at least one lower capacity, the estimated quantity of oil calculated over time based upon a condition measured at both a condenser and an evaporator, and said control being operable to move said compressor motor from the at least one lower capacity to the at least one higher capacity once the estimated quantity of oil exceeds a predetermined limit. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Christensen, Lifson, and He, the Examiner finds Christensen discloses much of the claimed subject matter, including "control (82, 92)" to operate a compressor motor, based on an estimated quantity of oil migrated from the compressor. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further finds Christensen does not disclose, as claimed: (a) the motor driving a compressor pump, with the motor and compressor pump housed within a shell having a sump for maintaining a lubricant, or (b) the estimated quantity of oil being based on a condition measured at both a condenser and an evaporator. Id. at 3, 4. The Examiner relies on Lifson in 2 Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203,164 relation to subject matter (a). Id. at 3--4. Appellant does not challenge that part of the rejection, so we need not further address subject matter (a) or Lifson. As to subject matter (b ), the Examiner finds He discloses controller 10 "for estimating [a] quantity of oil calculated over time in a refrigerant system, ... based upon the pressures I temperatures at both a condenser and an evaporator." Final Act. 5 (citing He, Figs. lA-lB, 2, 3, and 17-19, Abstract, i-fi-18, 39, 44--46, 103, 163-166, and 182). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Christensen's control "to estimate the amount of oil as claimed in view of the teachings of He so as to improve the control system by accurately estimat[ing the] quantity of oil in the compressor and assure reliable lubrication to the compressor ... to improve the reliability of the system/compressor." Id. at 6. Appellant argues "there is no reason to modify Christensen in view of He." Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends the Examiner "provides no evidence that Christensen's approach is any less reliable than" He's approach, so the Examiner's rationale for the combination-to improve the reliability of Christensen's system-lacks a rational basis. Appeal Br. 5- 6. Appellant moreover asserts He's oil model includes estimation error, which may overestimate3 the amount of oil in Christensen's compressor, and therefore fail to increase compressor speed when appropriate, whereas there is no evidence that Christensen fails to increase compressor speed when necessary. Id. (citing He i-fi-f 174--175, 179, 184). 3 Appellant actually refers to "underestimat[ing]" oil amount, but it is clear from the context that overestimating was intended. Appeal Br. 5---6. 3 Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203,164 The Examiner responds that He "teaches the importance of knowing how much oil remains in the different components of the system [such as the condenser and the evaporator] in order to ensure proper lubrication of the compressor" (emphasis added) (citing He i-fi-1 2-6), and He applies to different kinds of compressors and HV AC systems (citing He i1 42). Ans. 5. Based on these considerations, the Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to modify Christensen's control to estimate the oil quantity by measuring a condition at both the condenser and the evaporator, to improve Christensen's system "by accurately estimat[ing the] quantity of oil in the compressor and thus, ensure good lubrication goes into the compressor, and thus ensure the safe operation of the compressor." Id. at 5---6. We note, first, that the Examiner refers to modifying Christensen's "control (82, 92)" to measure conditions at both the condenser and the evaporator. Final Act. 2-3, 6. Christensen correspondingly discloses two different controls, control 82 and control 92, used in different embodiments. Christensen, i134 and Fig. 4 (control 82), i136 and Fig. 5 (control 92). To the extent the Examiner finds control 82 and control 92 are the same control, the Examiner errs. Id. Christensen does indicate "combinations of techniques discussed above for determining when ... to control a compressor speed ... may be used." Id. i137. However, the Examiner does not propose combining control 82 with control 92, does not discuss how such a combination relates to the subject matter of claim 1, and does not provide any reasons for such a combination. Final Act. 2-6. We, therefore, consider the Examiner's proposed modification to each control 82 and 92 separately. 4 Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203,164 Christensen's control 82 "is configured to monitor an oil level indicator 84 in a compressor 80" in order to determine when that oil level is too low. Christensen, i-f 34 and Fig. 4. If control 82 determines the oil level in compressor 80 is too low, control 82 increases the speed of compressor 80, thereby increasing the rate of oil return to compressor 80 from other components in the refrigeration system, such as the condenser and the evaporator. Id. i-fi-13 and 34, Fig. 4. That is, control 82 functions to ensure compressor 80 is adequately lubricated, and directly monitors the oil level within compressor 80 to achieve that function. The Examiner concludes the reliability of Christensen's system would be improved if control 82 were modified to monitor pressure or temperature at the condenser and the evaporator, rather than oil level indicator 84 in compressor 80, to determine whether the oil level in compressor 80 is too low. Final Act. 2-3, 6. It would seem, however, that a direct measurement of the variable of interest (i.e., oil level in compressor 80) via indicator 84 would be more reliable than an indirect measurement of the variable of interest via pressure or temperature sensors in the condenser and the evaporator. The Examiner does not cite to any evidence indicating, or provide any technical reasoning explaining why, the proposed modification would nonetheless improve reliability. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5---6. The Examiner cites paragraphs 2---6 of He (Ans. 5), which discuss using "costly viscosity sensors at the bottom of the compressor" (He i-f 6) to measure the oil concentration in the oil/refrigerant mixture in the compressor. He further indicates condenser and evaporator temperature sensors may be used to estimate the oil concentration "without an expensive viscosity sensor." He i-f 44. These disclosures in He indicate that the viscosity sensors at the 5 Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203,164 compressor are expensive, not that they are less reliable than temperature sensors at the condenser and the evaporator. For these reasons, we conclude the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to modify Christensen's control 82 in the manner proposed to improve reliability is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or sufficient technical reasoning, to establish a rational basis for making the modification. Christensen's control 92 "monitor[s] a pressure sensor 94, a temperature sensor 96, and a gas speed sensor 98" in order to determine when the oil level within compressor 100 is too low. Christensen, i-f 36 and Fig. 5. If control 92 determines the oil level in compressor 100 is too low, control 92 increases the speed of compressor 100, thereby increasing the rate of oil return to compressor 100 from other components in the refrigeration system, such as the condenser and the evaporator. Id. i-fi-13 and 36, Fig. 5. That is, control 92 functions to ensure compressor 100 is adequately lubricated, and indirectly monitors the oil level within compressor 100 to achieve that function. The Examiner concludes the reliability of Christensen's system would be improved if control 92 were modified to monitor pressure or temperature at the condenser and the evaporator, rather than the locations identified in Figure 5. 4 Final Act. 2-3, 6. We appreciate that He discloses indirectly monitoring the oil level within a compressor by monitoring the temperature of the condenser and the evaporator. He i-fi-12-3, 8, 39. However, the 4 It is not clear whether temperature sensor 96 in Figure 5 measures the temperature of the evaporator, or the gas line exiting the evaporator. Even if sensor 96 measures the temperature of the evaporator, Christensen does not disclose monitoring conditions at the condenser, as claimed. 6 Appeal2014-006272 Application 12/203,164 Examiner does not cite to any evidence indicating, or provide any technical reasoning explaining why, the proposed modification would improve reliability. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5---6. We, therefore, conclude the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to modify Christensen's control 92 in the manner proposed to improve reliability is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or sufficient technical reasoning, to establish a rational basis for making the modification. For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a rational basis, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, for modifying Christensen's control 82 or control 92 to monitor oil level in a compressor by monitoring pressure or temperature conditions at a condenser and an evaporator. The other independent claims 8 and 13, similarly to claim 1, recite "the estimated quantity of oil [is] calculated over time based upon a condition measured at both a condenser and an evaporator." Appeal Br. 16, 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner's obviousness rationale in rejecting claims 8 and 13 is the same as for claim 1. Final Act. 2---6. Further, the Examiner's consideration of dependent claims 2, 4---6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 does not cure the deficiency noted above. Id. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 as unpatentable over Christensen, Lifson, and He. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 as unpatentable over Christensen, Lifson, and He is not sustained. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation