Newman, Michael D.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 16, 20202019004379 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020) 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. 15/356,756 11/21/2016 Michael D. Newman P14A013/DIV 2949 20411 7590 11/16/2020 The Linde Group Law Department 10 Riverview Drive Danbury, CT 06810-5113 EXAMINER LEFF, STEVEN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2020 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): LG.US.IP@linde.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte MICHAEL D. NEWMAN __________ Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 seeks review of the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lang et al.2 in view of Okita.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Linde Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Brief dated July 2, 2018 (“Br.”), at 3. 2 US 5,170,631, issued December 15, 1992 (“Lang”). 3 US 2005/0136161 A1, published June 23, 2005 (“Okita”). Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 2 The claimed subject matter is directed to a method for reducing the temperature (e.g., freezing) of a product, such as a food product. The Appellant discloses that in a cryogenic freezing process, “the food product, being at a warmer temperature than the freezing system, will immediately start transferring heat to its surroundings as it undergoes freezing.” Spec. ¶ 4. However, “[a]s the product continues to freeze and its surface gets colder,” the Appellant discloses that “the rate at which heat can physically be removed from the product decreases.” Spec. ¶ 5. The Appellant discloses that the claimed freezing process “can be customized to balance the rate at which a product gives up heat (the product’s unique heat removal profile) to the degree of heat transfer provided to the surface of the food product to remove the heat.” Spec. ¶ 9. In the Appellant’s process, “the product is analyzed prior to freezing the product.” Spec. ¶ 14. The analyzing step “characterizes and quantifies product dimensions, composition, moisture content, and a temperature of the product prior to entering the freezer apparatus” and “[a] control system for the apparatus is programmed with these parameters.” Spec. ¶ 14. The apparatus then is said to optimize the freezing process based on those parameters and the given production rate for the product. Spec. ¶ 14. According to the Appellant’s process, a high heat transfer process is applied at the initial stage of the freezing and as the product freezes, heat transfer diminishes. Spec. ¶ 15. The heat transfer apparatus may be a convection fan, a cryogenic spray assembly, or a combination thereof. Spec. ¶¶ 15, 21. The heat transfer apparatus is said to be in communication with the control system such that fan speeds and cryogen spray velocities can be automatically adjusted throughout the process based on a desired freezing profile of the product. Spec. ¶ 15. Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 3 The Appellant discloses that fans alone provide the lowest heat removal or heat flux rate, cryogenic spray alone provides the next highest heat removal rate, and a combination of fans and cryogenic spray provides the highest heat removal rate. Spec. ¶ 21. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. 1. A method for reducing the temperature of a product, comprising: identifying physical characteristics and a heat profile of the product prior to causing heat transfer to and reducing the temperature of the product; exposing the product to a plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres arranged in descending order of heat transfer rates, said exposing the product occurring first at a first one of the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres having a greatest heat transfer rate; sensing the temperature of the product with a sensor during the exposing to the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres, the sensing beginning with the first one of the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres and continuing in each remaining one of the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres; and adjusting and controlling the heat transfer rates responsive to the temperature sensed and corresponding heat profile of the product. Br. 14 (emphasis added). B. DISCUSSION Lang discloses a method for reducing the temperature of a food product in a chamber using a combination of liquid cryogen cooling and mechanical refrigeration wherein the food product is transported via a conveyor from a first cryogenic freezing zone through a second mechanically refrigerated freezing zone. Lang, col. 3, ll. 33–43. The Examiner finds the freezing zones disclosed in Lang Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 4 correspond to the heat transfer rate atmospheres recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2.4 The Examiner finds Lang discloses each of the steps recited in claim 1, with the exception of sensing the temperature of the product in each of the heat transfer rate atmospheres. Final Act. 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds Lang teaches that temperature thermocouples are disposed at multiple locations within the chamber to sense food product temperature and a controller receives signals from the temperature thermocouples to adjust cryogen flow. Final Act. 4. The Examiner, however, finds Lang does not disclose that sensing continues in each of the heat transfer rate atmospheres as recited in claim 1.5 Final Act. 4; see Br. 14 (reciting, in claim 1, that “the sensing beginning with the first one of the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres and continuing in each remaining one of the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres”). The Examiner finds Okita discloses a freezing apparatus wherein food is conveyed through a freezer and temperature sensors are either disposed in the freezer or inserted into the food before freezing and removed thereafter, whereby the temperature of the food is sensed in each zone of the freezing apparatus.6 Final Act. 4 (citing Okita ¶ 45). The Examiner relies on Okita and the common sense of the ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Lang’s method to increase the number of 4 Final Office Action dated January 4, 2018. 5 Lang discloses that thermocouples are disposed adjacent the entrance and the exit openings of the first freezing zone. Lang, col. 8, ll. 6–12. 6 Similar to Lang, Okita discloses that the temperature sensors are coupled to a control unit which receives temperature data from the temperature sensors. Okita ¶ 37. Okita discloses that the control unit is configured to control fans and a carbon dioxide source to adjust the level of cooling energy depending on the temperature of the food. Okita ¶ 38. Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 5 temperature sensors in the disclosed chamber such that the temperature of the food product is sensed as it moves through each of the heat transfer rate atmospheres. Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that the proposed modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the desire to achieve a particular degree and rate of freezing, as determined by the food product temperature in each of the heat transfer rate atmospheres. Final Act. 4. The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion or the Examiner’s underlying factual findings. See Br. 10 (generally contending that Lang and Okita, either alone or in combination, do not disclose the sensing and adjusting steps recited in claim 1); Ans. 77 (finding that “[A]ppellant has not provided reasons why Lang teaches away from additional sensors”). The Appellant’s arguments on appeal are directed to Lang. The Appellant argues that Lang does not disclose the step of “‘exposing the product to a plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres arranged in descending order of heat transfer rates, said exposing the product occurring first at a first one of the plurality of heat transfer rate atmospheres having a greatest heat transfer rate,’” as recited in claim 1. Br. 11. More specifically, the Appellant argues that column 7, lines 35–39 of Lang, which is said to be relied on by the Examiner,8 does not disclose a greatest heat transfer rate at the inlet of the chamber. Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Lang’s chamber comprises an inlet (cryogenic) zone located adjacent the inlet of the chamber and an outlet (refrigeration) zone 7 Examiner’s Answer dated September 17, 2018. 8 The Examiner relies on column 7, lines 35–39 of Lang as disclosing that an inlet zone (i.e., the cryogenic zone) is located adjacent the inlet of the chamber. Final Act. 3; see also Lang, col. 7, ll. 35–40 (disclosing that the food to be frozen is placed on a conveyor where it is carried into the first freezing zone). Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 6 located adjacent the outlet of the chamber. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that a “rapid initial chill” occurs in the inlet zone. Ans. 7 (citing Lang, col. 10, ll. 18– 31); see also Lang, col. 10, ll. 22–27 (disclosing that cryogen is used in an amount to accomplish “the rapid initial chilling of the food product”). Lang discloses that mechanical refrigeration, in the outlet zone, completes the freezing process. Lang, col. 10, ll. 26–27. Thus, the Examiner finds that the inlet (cryogenic) zone comprises “a greatest heat transfer rate atmosphere”9 and the outlet (refrigeration) zone comprises “a lowest heat transfer rate atmosphere.” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 8 (finding that the heat transfer rate atmospheres in Lang are arranged in descending order of heat transfer rates as recited in claim 1). The Appellant does not direct us to any evidence to the contrary. The Appellant also argues that “Lang does not establish or alter the heat transfer profile of the freezing process to optimize efficiency of the process based upon the food product being frozen and the thermal characteristics of the food product, as claimed.” Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). To the contrary, Lang discloses that properties of the food product are identified prior to freezing and the cryogen amount is adjusted based on those properties to optimize efficiency and minimize cost. See Lang, col. 4, ll. 6–19 (characterizing the disclosed process as “efficient and flexible”); Lang, col. 4, ll. 28–31 (disclosing that an object of the invention is to freeze food products “efficiently and economically”). More specifically, Lang discloses that an advantage of using the disclosed freezer apparatus is 9 See Okita ¶ 34 (teaching that “heat transfer” and “cooling” are synonymous in the context of freezing foods). Appeal 2019-004379 Application 15/356,756 7 the capacity to adjust or tailor the process to the particular food products being frozen in order to achieve the most favorable balance of cryogenic freezing and mechanical refrigeration freezing. Depending on the mass of the product, the thickness and the incoming temperature, there may be more or less cryogenic cooling required to cool the product quickly to at or near the 32° F. level where moisture loss is minimized. It is possible with the combination freezer of the present invention to use only that amount of cryogen necessary to accomplish the rapid initial chilling of the food product, while relying on the less costly mechanical refrigeration to complete the freezing of the product. The result is that the combination cryogenic and mechanical freezer apparatus of the present invention uses about one- half the cryogen that a fully cryogenic freezer uses. Lang, col. 10, ll. 14–30; see also Ans. 7 (citing Lang, col. 10, ll. 13–25). Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness in the rejection of claim 1. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of dependent claims 2–7. See Br. 11, 12. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 1–7 is sustained. C. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7 103 Lang, Okita 1–7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation