Uniweld Products, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 20212021002662 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021) 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. 15/408,493 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation