Newman, Michael D.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

2019004379 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020)

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