Trane International Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 20, 202014512992 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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. 14/512,992 10/13/2014 Dennis M. Beekman 20424.0184USC1 4558 136306 7590 04/20/2020 IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683 EXAMINER PEKARSKAYA, LILYA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2020 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): ptomail@hsml.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DENNIS M. BEEKMAN, DANIEL R. CRUM, TIMOTHY SEAN HAGEN, DENNIS R. DORMAN, and JOHN R. SAULS Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Appellant provides notice that at the time of the filing of the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejection of co-pending parent Application No. 12/840,018 was being appealed. See Appeal Br. 2. That appeal matured into Appeal No. 2018-004864, and a decision was rendered in that matter on March 22, 2019, affirming the Examiner’s rejections. Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 33, 36, 39, and 40, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to screw compressors for refrigeration systems.” Spec. 1:5. Apparatus claims 1, 33, and 36 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. A variable capacity screw compressor, comprising: a rotor housing, comprising: a suction port, a working chamber, a discharge port, and at least two screw rotors that include a female screw rotor and a male screw rotor being positioned within the working chamber for cooperatively compressing a fluid; one or more first bearings positioned close to the discharge port, wherein the one or more first bearings are configured to withstand radial forces in operation; one or more second bearings positioned close to the discharge port and abutting the one or more first bearings, wherein the one or more second bearings are configured to withstand axial forces in operation; a bearing housing, wherein of the one or more first bearings and the one or more second bearings, the bearing housing is configured to directly support only the one or more first bearings; 2 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 “TRANE INTERNATIONAL INC.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 3 a bearing cover, wherein of the one or more first bearings and the one or more second bearings, the bearing cover is configured to directly support only the one or more second bearings, the bearing housing being disposed physically between the rotor housing and the bearing cover; wherein the suction port, the at least two screw rotors, and the discharge port are configured in relation to an optimum peripheral velocity that is independent of a peripheral velocity of the at least one screw rotor at a motor rotational speed for a rated screw compressor capacity, the optimum peripheral velocity is a constant product including a selected rotational speed and a radius of the at least one screw rotor of the at least two screw rotors; a motor operable to drive the at least one screw rotor at a rotational speed at a full-load capacity that is greater than the motor rotational speed at the rated screw compressor capacity; and a variable speed drive to receive a command signal from a controller and to generate a control signal that drives the motor at the rotational speed. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Sjoholm et al (“Sjoholm”) US 6,506,038 B2 Jan 14, 2003 Kammhoff et al. “(Kammhoff”) US 6,572,354 B2 June 3, 2003 Wills et al. (“Wills”) US 7,096,681 B2 Aug. 29, 2006 Sishtla et al. (“Sishtla”) US 2009/0060759 A1 Mar. 5, 2009 Jurgen Wennemar, Dry Screw Compressor Performance and Application Range, Proceedings Of The Thirty-Eight TurboMachinery Symposium-2009, 149–156. Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 4 REJECTIONS Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wills, Wennemar, Kammhoff, and Sjoholm. Claims 33, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kammhoff, Sjoholm, and Sishtla. ANALYSIS The rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Wills, Wennemar, Kammhoff, and Sjoholm The Examiner relies on Wills for disclosing many of the limitations of claim 1, including rotation of screw rotors in an optimal manner, i.e., a variable speed drive is controlled “to provide the optimal operational setting for the motor 106 and screw compressor 108.” Wills 6:12–15; see also Non- Final Act. 3–7. “Accordingly, the examiner must assert that Wills’ compressor speed is an operating variable parameter.” Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 28. However, the Examiner finds that “Wills does not explicitly disclose that the optimum peripheral velocity or tip speed [of the rotor] is a constant product” as recited. Non-Final Act. 7 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on Wennemar for teaching a focus on a uniform rotor peripheral or tip speed, rather than shaft rotation speed. See Non-Final Act. 7 (referencing Wennemar “page 152 left column paragraph ‘similarity considerations’”); see also Ans. 27–29. The Examiner further quotes Wennemar’s teaching that rotor “design is influenced by many conflicting requirements such as efficiency, mechanical strength, manufacturing methods, and cost.” Non-Final Act. 8 (emphasis removed); Wennemar 149, last paragraph. Therefore, according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious “to combine the [peripheral speed] teaching of Wennemar to the Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 5 variable capacity screw compressor of Wills.” Non-Final Act. 8. This is “in order to obtain predictable results,” i.e., control of fluid flow, which is “an obvious extension of the prior art teachings.” Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner’s additional reliance on Kammhoff and Sjoholm (see Non-Final Act. 9–12) are addressed as needed. Appellant contends, “Wills makes no express or inherent reference to a structure . . . configured in relation to an optimum peripheral velocity” as claimed.3 Appeal Br. 8. We disagree that Wills fails to teach an optimum velocity (while noting that Wennemar addresses the “peripheral” aspect of Appellant’s contention (see Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 28–29)). For example, Wills teaches, “[t]he screw compressor is configured to provide a predetermined output capacity in response to being driven at the predetermined output speed of the motor.” Wills 2:46–49. Because Wills’ screw compressor is driven based on motor speed, and because Wills addresses providing “the optimal operational setting for the motor 106 and screw compressor 108” (Wills 6:13–15), we agree with the Examiner that Wills is, indeed, “configured in relation to an optimum [] velocity” (Appeal Br. 8; see also Non-Final Act. 7, Ans. 28). Appellant further contends, Wills “relies upon existing screw compressors, and accordingly, provides little guidance regarding the structural configuration of the screw compressor.” Appeal Br. 8. In other words, “[t]here is no reasonable basis to assume the screw compressor of Wills would have the same structural configuration as claim 1 merely because the screw compressor is functional.” Appeal Br. 8–9. However, 3 The claimed structure (deleted for clarity) is “the suction port, the at least two screw rotors, and the discharge port.” See claim 1. Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 6 Appellant, by understanding that Wills’ compressors are “functional,” must additionally understand that Wills’ compressors are successful at functioning to provide, as expressed above, “the optimal operational setting” for Wills’ motor and compressor. Wills 6:13–15. Thus, Appellant does not explain how the Examiner erred is stating that “Wills’ screw compressors are designed such that the [recited structure is] undoubtedly configured in relation to a selected rotational speed, otherwise, the system cannot normally operate,” i.e., function as described. Non-Final Act. 4–5 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 26 (“Appellant has recited no structure which makes this interpretation unreasonable”). Hence, it is immaterial whether or not Wills relies upon existing screw compressors, because there is a reasonable basis, in view of Wills’ teachings, that these compressors would, “undoubtedly,” have their structure “configured in relation to an optimum peripheral velocity” as claimed (and in view of Wennemar’s “peripheral” teachings). The Examiner additionally notes that claim 1 recites certain structure that is “configured” in a certain manner, and that “[t]here is no specific structure claimed or otherwise disclosed by Appellant which requires” such structure to be actually sized in such a manner. Ans. 25–26 (referencing Spec. 5:8–14). Accordingly, the Examiner states that apparatus claim 1 “must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” Ans. 16 (referencing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP § 2114.). Thus, based on Wills’ disclosure, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that “Wills does not teach or suggest any of the structural relationships required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 7 When addressing Wennemar, Appellant does not dispute Wennemar’s focus on peripheral speed over rotational speed (as in Walls), but contends, “Wennemar does not remedy the deficiencies of Wills.” Appeal Br. 9. As noted above, Wennemar is relied on for directing a skilled person to consider peripheral speed. Non-Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 27–29. Wennemar is not relied on for disclosing the structure discussed above, or the optimization of speed values. Hence, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Wennemar” regarding “determination of optimal peripheral velocity . . . much less to physically size the [claimed structure] in relation to the optimum peripheral velocity, as required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 11, 12. In short, Appellant is not addressing the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on a combination of Wills and Wennemar, not just the one or the other. See Appeal Br. 8–12; see also Ans. 32 (“one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually”). Appellant further contends, “[t]here is no apparent reason to combine Wennemar with Wills,” because no one “would have expected to arrive at claim 1 or the advantages enjoyed thereby.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant does not explain why this might be the case, or why a skilled person would not have combined Wills’ twin rotor compressor design with Wennemar’s teaching regarding peripheral rotor speed. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner lacked articulated reasoning with rational underpinning when combining Wills and Wennemar, or that their combination fails to render obvious the limitation addressed above. See also Ans. 31. Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 8 The Examiner further relied on Kammhoff for disclosing a different claim 1 limitation directed to a bearing housing and a bearing cover. See Non-Final Act. 9; see also id. at 10, 11 (depicting the Examiner’s annotation of Figures 1 and 3 of Kammhoff), Ans. 31. Appellant does not dispute Kammhoff’s disclosure of the recited bearing housing, but contends “Kammhoff is at best silent with regard to the description around the alleged bearing cover.” Appeal Br. 13. We note that Appellant does not contend there is no bearing cover identified by the Examiner, only that Kammhoff is silent regarding any description of the identified structure (which is not numbered). Our reviewing court has provided guidance to the effect that clearly illustrated structure may be relied upon in a rejection, i.e., “we did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). Appellant does not argue the non- existence of a bearing cover, only that Kammhoff “is at best silent” regarding its description. Appeal Br. 13. In view of Kammhoff’s drawings, and the Examiner’s annotation of same (see Non-Final Act. 10, 11), Appellant’s contention is not persuasive the Examiner erred in relying on a clear depiction of a corresponding “bearing cover.” See Non-Final Act. 11. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Wills, Wennemar, Kammhoff, and Sjoholm. The rejection of claims 33, 36, 39, and 40 as unpatentable over Kammhoff, Sjoholm, and Sishtla Appellant presents separate arguments for independent claim 33 and independent claim 36. See Appeal Br. 14–16. Such arguments are similar to Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 9 each other. Compare Appeal Br. 14 with Appeal Br. 15. Additionally, Appellant does not present separate arguments for dependent claims 39 and 40. Accordingly, we select claim 33 for review, with claims 36, 39, and 40 standing or falling with claim 33. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 33, Appellant only addresses the limitations reciting “a bearing housing” and “a bearing cover” (which are identical to language recited in claim 1). Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner relies on Kammhoff for such teachings. See Non-Final Act. 13. Appellant’s contentions on this point mirror those already presented with respect to claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 13 with Appeal Br. 14; see also Ans. 32 (“Appellant makes substantially the same arguments as made above to the independent claim 1”). Appellant does not separately dispute the Examiner’s reliance on Sjoholm (or Sishtla) other than to contend that “Sjoholm does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 33 discussed above.” Appeal Br. 14. Because Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive for reasons already expressed, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33, 36, 39, and 40 as being obvious in view of the combination of Kammhoff, Sjoholm, and Sishtla. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed 1 103(a) Wills, Wennemar, Kammhoff, Sjoholm 1 33, 36, 39, 40 103(a) Kammhoff, Sjoholm, Sishtla 33, 36, 39, 40 Appeal 2019-005526 Application 14/512,992 10 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1, 33, 36, 39, 40 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation