SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2020

14547665 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 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.
14/547,665 11/19/2014 Takaaki Matsui 880503-0075-US00 3075
134795 7590 03/19/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
KING, BRIAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2020 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
sbjames@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKAAKI MATSUI
Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, and 14–19. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sumitomo Heavy
Industries, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a cryopump system and a method of
operating a cryopump system. Claims 1, 8, and 9 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with italics added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A cryopump system comprising:
at least one cryopump including a refrigerator including a
low temperature cooling stage and a high temperature cooling
stage, a low temperature cryopanel cooled by the low
temperature cooling stage, and a high temperature cryopanel
cooled by the high temperature cooling stage; and
a compressor unit including a compressor main body that
compresses a working gas to be supplied to the refrigerator, an
operating frequency of the compressor main body being variable,
wherein the compressor unit is operated such that a
pressure ratio between a high pressure of the compressor main
body and a low pressure of the compressor main body is in a
range between 1.6 and 2.5,
wherein the refrigerator is operated with a refrigeration
efficiency as a function of the pressure ratio to cool the low
temperature cryopanel to a temperature zone between 9 K and 15
K,
wherein the refrigeration efficiency is defined as ε = Q/W,
where Q is refrigeration work of the refrigerator and W is
compression work of the compressor unit,
wherein the cryopump system is configured such that,
during operation of the compressor unit at a pressure ratio
selected from the range between 1.6 and 2.5, the refrigeration
efficiency is maximized at any temperature in the temperature
zone between 9 K and 15 K.

Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shiibayashi US 2002/0051719 A1 May 2, 2002
Kimura US 2011/0016890 A1 Jan. 27, 2011
Tanaka US 2012/0060519 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
Ando US 2012/0067065 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Tanaka, Kimura, and Shiibayashi.
2. Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tanaka, Kimura, Shiibayashi, and Ando.
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Tanaka discloses most of the limitations of
the cryopump of claim 1, including a compressor and a refrigerator that
cools the low temperature cryopanel to a temperature zone between 9 K and
15 K, but does not disclose varying the operating frequency of the
compressor, and does not disclose a compressor operating pressure ratio in
the range between 1.6 and 2.5. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner relies on
Kimura to disclose a controller that controls the compressor and considers
that it would have been obvious to use a controller in the system of Tanaka
“to be able to adjust the operation of the compressor based on the operating
parameters of the refrigerator.” Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on Shiibayashi
to disclose a compressor operating pressure ratio in the range between 1.6
and 2.5, and concludes that it would have been obvious to operate the
Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665

4
compressor of Tanaka at the claimed pressure ratio “so that a wider range of
pressure ratios can be achieved without lowering the efficiency.” Id.
Appellant points out that in the system of claim 1, when the pressure
ratio is in the recited range between 1.6 and 2.5, “the refrigeration efficiency
. . . is maximized at any temperature in the temperature zone between 9K
and 15K.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that Shiibayashi discloses that
the design of Shiibayashi’s compressor results in an increase in compressor
efficiency, but does not disclose a corresponding increase in refrigeration
efficiency. See id. at 16–17. According to Appellant, “Shiibayashi fails to
disclose, teach, or suggest that a refrigeration efficiency of a refrigerator is a
function of a pressure ratio of a compressor unit” and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably concluded that Shiibayashi’s compressor
efficiency “differs from the refrigeration efficiency of the claimed
invention.” Id. at 18. Appellant argues, moreover, that Tanaka, Kimura, and
Shiibayashi “are silent as to a refrigeration efficiency as a function of the
pressure ratio.” Id. at 22.
The Examiner responds that because the compressor is part of the
refrigeration cycle, an increase in compressor efficiency “would result in a
higher refrigeration efficiency.” Ans. 16. The Examiner finds, moreover,
that Appellant is arguing against the references individually, and that
because the combined teachings of the references have “the same operating
conditions as the claims, it would have naturally flowed from the
combination of Tanaka and Shiibayashi to have such a maximum
efficiency.” Id.
Appellant replies that the arguments do not attack the references
individually, but point out that none of the references disclose that
Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665

5
refrigeration efficiency is a function of a pressure ratio. See Reply Br. 7–8.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s Answer acknowledges
that Tanaka and Kimura do not disclose this feature, and according to
Appellant, “Shiibayashi does not show prior knowledge in the art regarding
the refrigeration efficiency of a refrigerator being a function of a pressure
ratio between a high pressure of compressor main body and a low pressure
of the compressor main body.” Id. at 8–10 (citing Ans. 4). For the
following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Although we appreciate that Shiibayashi’s increase in compressor
efficiency would appear to result in an increase in refrigeration efficiency as
the Examiner suggests, the Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in
Shiibayashi showing that, or otherwise adequately explain why,
Shiibayahsi’s increase in efficiency is a function of pressure ratio across the
compressor. Shiibayashi discloses that when conventional compressors,
which normally operated at higher pressure ratios, were operated at a
pressure ratio “of around 1.5 to around 2” that “efficiency reduction
becomes remarkable.” Shiibayahsi ¶ 3. Shiibayashi further discloses that an
object of the invention is “to provide a scroll compressor capable of
performing a stable operation [at lower pressure ratios] without lowering the
efficiency.” Id. at ¶ 5. Specifically, Shiibayashi discloses setting the
volume ratio of a scroll wrap portion Vr of a compressor between 1.8 to 2.3
and that when using “the above-described structure, the overall adiabatic
efficiency increases at the exceedingly low operating pressure ratio and a
high-performance scroll compressor can be obtained.” Shiibayashi ¶ 14.
However, establishing an increasing in the efficiency of the compressor at
the same pressure ratio range used in the conventional compressors is not
Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665

6
equivalent to establishing that the recited refrigeration efficiency is a
function of pressure ratio across the compressor. To the contrary, paragraph
14 of Shiibayashi discloses that the volume ratio of the scroll wrap portion
of the compressor increases the efficiency for a fixed pressure ratio. Thus,
although Shiibayashi increases compressor efficiency, the Examiner has not
shown that Shiibayashi relates the increase to the operating pressure ratio
across the compressor. By contrast, claim 1 requires operating the
“compressor unit at a pressure ratio selected from the range between 1.6 and
2.5, the refrigeration efficiency is maximized at any temperature in the
temperature zone between 9 K and 15 K.”
The Examiner, thus, has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Shiibayashi discloses that [refrigeration] efficiency is a
function of the compressor pressure ratio as required by claim 1. As the
rejection is based on an erroneous factual finding, the conclusion of
obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be
supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it
cannot stand.”). Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and claims 4–7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 which depend from claim 1.
The Examiner’s findings in support of the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 9 are substantially similar to the findings set forth for claim 1.
Final Act. 6–10. Appellant contends that the arguments in connection with
the rejection of claim 1 “are incorporated herein by reference,” and that
claims 8 and 16–17 stand together, and that claims 9 and 18–19 stand
together. Appeal Br. 27–28. For the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, and
Appeal 2019-003987
Application 14/547,665

7
16–19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanaka, Kimura, and
Shiibayashi.
Rejection 2
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). The
Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure from Ando to cure the
deficiencies in Tanaka, Kimura, and Shiibayashi discussed above. See Final
Act. 12. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–11, 14–19 103 Tanaka, Kimura,
Shiibayashi
1, 4–11,
14–19
3 103 Tanaka, Kimura,
Shiibayashi, Ando
3
Overall
Outcome:
1, 3–11,
14–19
REVERSED