Uniweld Products, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2021002662 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

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.
15/408,493 01/18/2017 David S. Pearl II 508P010Div 3457
42754 7590 09/30/2021
Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC
176 E. Main Street
Suite #5
Westborough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
TEITELBAUM, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID S. PEARL II, DRAGAN BUKUR,
DAVID FOSTER, and DOUGLAS B. PEARL
____________

Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 and 2. 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 Uniweld Products, Inc., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493

2
CLAIMS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and reads:
1. A method of controlling the vaporization of a liquid
refrigerant in a device for transferring the liquid refrigerant to a
point of use in a vapor state, comprising introducing said liquid
refrigerant into said device under pressure; causing said liquid
refrigerant to vaporize in said device; visually monitoring the
extent of said vaporization; and controlling the rate of
introduction of said liquid refrigerant into said device in
response to said visual monitoring to ensure complete
vaporization of said liquid refrigerant in said device prior to
transferring the refrigerant to said point of use.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

REJECTION
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rakowski (US 2002/0170308, published Nov. 21, 2002),
Daniel (US 6,427,469 B1, issued Aug. 6, 2002), and Shrader (US 3,201,950,
issued Aug. 24, 1965).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Rakowski discloses a
method of controlling the vaporization of a liquid refrigerant in a device for
transfer to a point of use in its vapor state, but does not disclose: (a) visually
monitoring the extent of vaporization; and (b) controlling the rate of
introduction of the liquid refrigerant into the device in response to the visual
monitoring to ensure complete vaporization of the liquid refrigerant in the
device prior to transferring the refrigerant to the point of use. Final Act. 2–3
(citing Rakowski ¶ 30).
Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493

3
The Examiner finds that Daniel teaches a refrigeration system that
provides visual indication of a refrigeration state using sight glass 51, and
also controlling of the rate of introduction of liquid refrigerant into a device
(compressor/condenser 50) in response to the visual monitoring for servicing
a refrigeration system. Final Act. 3 (citing Daniel, col. 3, ll. 39–41, col. 5, ll.
47–48). Regarding this “controlling,” the Examiner finds that Daniel
teaches that when sight glass 51 indicates there is an improper refrigerant
state, a user will manually close hand valve 46. Id. Thus, the Examiner
submits, Daniel controls the rate of introduction of liquid refrigerant into the
device in response to the visual monitoring. Id. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of
Daniel, to provide visual monitoring and controlling of a rate of introduction
of a liquid refrigerant into a device in response to the visual monitoring to
ensure the proper state of the refrigerant when servicing a refrigeration
system. Id.
The Examiner finds that Shrader teaches a refrigeration system that
ensures complete vaporization of a liquid refrigerant in a device prior to
transferring the refrigerant to a point of use to eliminate the possibility of
damage to a compressor by preventing a slug of liquid from reaching it.
Final Act. 3–4 (citing Shrader, col. 2, ll. 3–6). The Examiner concludes that,
in view of Shrader, it would have been obvious to ensure complete
vaporization of a liquid refrigerant in a device prior to transferring the
refrigerant to a point of use in the combination, to eliminate the possibility
of damage to a compressor by preventing liquid from reaching it. Id. at 4.
Appellant contests the rejection for several reasons. First, Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s “premise necessarily requires and assumes that
Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493

4
complete vaporization does not already occur in Rakowski. To the contrary,
however, Rakowski expressly teaches that complete vaporization in the
capillary does in fact occur.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant quotes the following
disclosure in Rakowski:
When the valve member 40 is seated against the face
surface 42, the helical passage 48 functions as a capillary
converting liquid refrigerant to its vapor state. An outlet from
the capillary communicates with an expansion space 58, visible
in FIGS. 3 and 10 a corresponding expansion chamber, not
shown, is within the manifold body or housing 12 of FIG. 1.
The expansion space assures full vaporization of the refrigerant.
Similarly, the pair of small inlet holes or passages 30 rather
than a single hole of comparable cross-sectional area contribute
to the efficient operation of the capillary action to assure full
vaporization.
Id. (quoting Rakowski ¶ 30, bold face omitted). Appellant contends that the
Examiner has created a problem of “incomplete vaporization” that does not
exist in Rakowski. Id. Appellant contends that visually monitoring the
extent of the vaporization in Rakowski would serve no purpose because
complete vaporization is already assured. Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds, “[o]ne seeking to determine precisely when a
refrigerant vaporizes . . . [and] how long the vaporization process takes
would use a sight glass, as disclosed by Daniel, to monitor the extent of
vaporization of the refrigerant.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner
asserts that, in Rakowski, “[o]ne would only be able to be assured the
refrigerant will eventually become vaporized. However, one would not be
able to monitor the extent of vaporization of the refrigerant.” Id. at 3–4
(emphasis added). According to the Examiner, “things can always go wrong
in a system. Thus even if Rakowski does teach ‘assuring full vaporization’,
one still could see a benefit in being able to determine visually for oneself
Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493

5
the extent of the vaporization for maintenance purposes during refrigeration
servicing.” Id. at 4.
Appellant replies that there is no reason why, in Rakowski, one would
seek to determine precisely when a refrigerant vaporizes, or how long the
vaporization process takes, because the only concern is that vapor flows to
the low side of the system, and Rakowski ensures this. Reply Br. 2–3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided an
adequate reason to modify Rakowski to determine when a refrigerant
vaporizes, or how long this process takes. The Examiner acknowledges that
Rakowski assures “full vaporization of the refrigerant.” See Rakowski ¶ 30.
Rakowski discloses that “the pair of small inlet holes or passages 30 . . .
contribute to the efficient operation of the capillary action to assure full
vaporization.” Id. (boldface omitted, emphasis added). Rakowski does not
disclose or suggest that either the specific time of completion, or the
duration, of the “efficient” vaporization is a concern.
Second, Appellant contends that there is no reason to control the rate
of introduction of liquid refrigerant in Rakowski in response to visual
monitoring to ensure complete vaporization of the refrigerant in the device,
because this already is assured by Rakowski’s device. Appeal Br. 11. The
Examiner responds, “[w]hile the full vaporization is assured the ‘extent’ of
the vaporization is not disclosed.” Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellant that Rakowski does not disclose or suggest
that the “extent” of the vaporization is an issue, but rather, discloses that
“full vaporization” will be achieved. Reply Br. 3.
Third, Appellant contends that Daniel does not monitor the extent of
vaporization, and does not teach any particular response to the visualization.
Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493

6
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that “the purpose disclosed by Daniel[s]
for his sight glasses is to provide a visual indication of refrigerant gas and
liquid flow.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant also contends that Daniel does not
teach using valve 46 to control the rate of introduction of liquid refrigerant
in response to the visual monitoring with the sight glass. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appellant contends that the only use of valve 46 taught by Daniel is to
replace the filter member,” and “[v]alve 46 has nothing to do with any visual
monitoring in Daniel.” Id. at 12 (citing Daniel, col. 5, ll. 17–20).
We agree that Daniel does not disclose or suggest that, when visual
monitoring using sight glass 51 indicates there is an improper refrigerant
state, a user will respond by manually closing hand valve 46 to thereby
control the rate of introduction of liquid into the device. Final Act. 3.
Daniel discloses that valve 46 can be closed when filter member 44 is being
replaced, but that valve 46 is “normally left open during operation.” See
Daniel, col. 5, ll. 17–19. Daniel does not disclose or suggest that replacing
the filter member is related to visual monitoring of refrigerant gas and liquid
flow using sight glass 51, or to controlling the rate of introduction of this
flow into refrigerant conditioning device 10, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner also maintains that using Daniel’s sight glass to
determine that no vaporization is taking place would lead to controlling the
rate of introduction of the liquid refrigerant in response. Ans. 4. According
to the Examiner, “when an abnormality is seen in the sight glass the flow of
refrigerant will be stopped and the rate of introduction of the liquid
refrigerant will be controlled to zero. Thus one would look to control the
rate of introduction when visually monitoring the extent of the vaporization
of the refrigerant.” Id.
Appeal 2021-002662
Application 15/408,493

7
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s statement is
unsupported, as neither Rakowski nor Daniel actually discloses or suggests
such process. Reply Br. 4.
Finally, the Examiner’s application of Shrader as teaching to “ensure
complete evaporation” does not cure the deficiency in the combination of
Rakowski and Daniel, as Rakowski already teaches this.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claim 2 depending therefrom, as being unpatentable over Rakowski,
Daniel, and Shrader.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103 Rakowski, Shrader 1, 2

REVERSED