Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2019

14423254 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/423,254 02/23/2015 Jian Sun
87059 7590 03/25/2019
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
61375US02 (U350300US2) 7343
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2019 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 JIAN SUN and LUCY YI LIU
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action (dated May 16, 2017) ("Final Act.")
rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Carrier Corporation, identified by the Appeal
Brief as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to improving the energy efficiency
and/or low cooling capacity operation of a transcritical refrigerant vapor
compression system. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with selected limitations emphasized, illustrates the
claimed subject matter.
1. A refrigerant vapor compression system comprising:
a compression device for compressing a refrigerant vapor
from a suction pressure to a discharge pressure, a refrigerant heat
rejection heat exchanger and a refrigerant heat absorption heat
exchanger arranged in serial refrigerant flow relationship in a
transcritical cycle closed-loop primary refrigerant circuit, the
refrigerant heat rejection heat exchanger functioning as a
refrigerant gas cooler and the refrigerant heat absorption heat
exchanger functioning as a refrigerant evaporator; and
a controller operatively associated with the refrigerant
vapor compression system, the controller configured to control
the discharge pressure to a desired set point discharge pressure
to improve energy efficiency, wherein the controller determines
the set point discharge pressure as a mathematical product of a
compressor speed correction factor multiplied by a function of a
refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition and an evaporator
refrigerant condition.
Rejections
I. Claims 1--4, 7, 8, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara (US 2010/0175400 Al,
published July 15, 2010). Final Act. 4--7.
II. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara and Yoshino (US 4,420,947, issued
Dec. 20, 1983). Final Act. 8.
2
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
III. Claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara and Chen (WO
2009/091400 Al, published July 23, 2009). Final Act. 8-11.
IV. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara, Chen, and Yoshino. Final Act. 11.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1-35 USC§ 103(a) over Kasahara
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 11
Appellant argues the rejection based on claim 1. See Br. 3-8. We
select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal of this rejection on the
basis of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Kasahara teaches the refrigerant vapor
compression system of independent claim 1, except for claim 1 's limitations
requiring that "the controller determines the set point discharge pressure as a
mathematical product of [ 1] a compressor speed correction factor multiplied
by a function of [2a] a refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition and [2b] an
evaporator refrigerant condition" (bracketed numbering added). The
Examiner finds Kasahara determines the set point discharge pressure based
on mathematical products including a function of a refrigerant gas cooler
outlet condition (limitation 2a), namely T4 from sensor 39, Final Act. 4,
which Kasahara describes as "the output signal from the gas cooler outlet
temperature sensor (39) for the cooling operation (i.e., a gas cooler outlet
temperature T4), Kasahara ,r 63. The Examiner acknowledges that this
finding does not address the speed correction factor (limitation 1) or
evaporator refrigerant condition (limitation 2b ), or the mathematical
3
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
relationship between these inputs as recited in the claim. See Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds, however, that (1) Kasahara also uses a target discharge
temperature calculator 43 to determine a set point discharge temperature Tls
as a function of compressor speed fc and an evaporator refrigerant condition
P 1, (2) "it is well known to the art that pressure and temperature are
correlated by the pressure-temperature curve of a refrigerant," and (3) "[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have used only the set point discharge pressure to base the
controller design on the inputs of a compressor speed correction factor, a
refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition, and an evaporator refrigerant
condition in order to optimize the controller through routine
experimentation." Id. at 5; see Ans. 2-3.
In addition, the Examiner relies on Figure 5 of Kasahara, finding that
the figure shows "the compressor speed correction factor (~fc 1 ), set point
discharge pressure (Phs by way of Plc), gas cooler outlet conditions (T4 or
T3s by way of Plc and P5c), and evaporator refrigerant condition (Shs, Ta,
or Ts by way of P5c, P9c, and P13c) are all related by mathematical
products (though the addition of Plc, P5c, P9c, and P13c)." Id. The
Examiner finds that "~fcl = Plc + P5c + P9c + P13c," and that "the mere
rearrangement of the disclosed variables to solve for another variable (in this
case set point discharge pressure), is a mere mathematical exercise and is
inherently a function of said variables." Id.; see Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that "[t]he fact that [Kasahara's] speed fc and an
evaporator refrigerant condition are used by the target discharge temperature
calculator 43 does not disclose or suggest that these values could be used by
the target high pressure calculator 42 to determine a discharge pressure
4
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
setpoint." Br. 6. Appellant contends that, although it is true that
temperature and pressure of a refrigerant are correlated, "there is no
predictable basis to use the speed fc and evaporator refrigerant condition as
inputs to the target high pressure calculator 42." Id. Appellant also argues
Kasahara's "fc" variable is not taught to be a speed correction factor. Id.
As to the Examiner's rationale for modifying Kasahara, Appellant
argues that the Examiner's "reliance on 'routine experimentation' is an
improper standard for finding claim 1 obvious over Kasahara," and
Appellant distinguishes the Examiner's findings in this case from cases in
which the correct variables are taught in the prior art but do not meet ranges
recited in the claims. Br. 6-7. Appellant contends that "Kasahara does not
disclose using a compressor speed correction factor, refrigerant gas cooler
outlet condition and an evaporator refrigerant condition as variables in
determining a set point discharge pressure." Br. 7.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's rationale for modifying
Kasahara to determine set point discharge pressure in the manner claimed is
not sufficient here. To the extent the Examiner finds Kasahara determines
the set point discharge pressure using similar inputs as recited in claim 1 and
merely expresses the calculation in a different way that may be manipulated
based on known correlations between variables in the system, the evidence
does not support such a finding. The only two variables used to determine
Kasahara's set point discharge pressure in the cooling embodiment described
in paragraph 63 of Kasahara are two measured temperatures, namely the
outdoor temperature TO and the gas cooler outlet temperature T4. Kasahara
,r 63. Although Kasahara's temperature T4 may be affected by compressor
speed and an evaporator refrigerant condition, there is insufficient evidence
5
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
that the claimed inputs can be simply substituted for T 4 with no effective
change to Kasahara's control approach. Similarly, even if mathematically
possible to substitute variables and solve the equation ( derived from
Kasahara Figure 5) ~fcl = Plc + P5c + P9c + P13c for the set point
discharge pressure, there is no indication in Kasahara that the target
discharge pressure would be set in this manner by the controller.
As to the Examiner's related finding that routine experimentation
would have resulted in modifying Kasahara's approach to control of the
system such that the set point discharge pressure was determined in the
manner claimed, we agree with Appellant that this rationale is insufficient in
this case. The Examiner does not find that one of ordinary skill would have
recognized any particular benefit from using inputs other than Kasahara's
sensed temperatures TO and T 4 to determine the set point discharge pressure,
let alone a benefit to using the claimed inputs. Given the number of possible
inputs and reasons given by Kasahara for controlling the refrigeration
system in the manner taught, see, e.g., Kasahara ,r 83, we are not persuaded
one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed control
system through routine experimentation.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kasahara. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, and 11 on the same ground.
Rejections II-IV
Like claim 1, independent claim 12 also recites that the set point
discharge pressure is "determined as a mathematical product of a
6
Appeal2018-003963
Application 14/423,254
compressor speed factor multiplied by a function of a refrigerant gas cooler
outlet condition and an evaporator refrigerant condition." Rejections II-IV
rely on the same unsupported findings as the rejection of claim 1 discussed
supra. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claim 1, we do not sustain the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 6 (Rejection II), claims 9, 10,
12-15, and 18-20 (Rejection III), and claims 16 and 17 (Rejection IV), as
set forth in Rejections II-IV.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7