Carrier Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2020003535 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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.
15/197,883 06/30/2016 Rajendra K. Shah 81946US02 (U300624US2) 1547
87059 7590 12/16/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
FURDGE, LARRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAJENDRA K. SHAH and BRADLEY D. POWELL
____________

Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–14, and 16–20. 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(a). Appellant identifies Carrier Corporation as the Applicant
and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is an HVAC control system. Spec. ¶¶ 1–7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of operating a heating, ventilation and
air conditioning (HV AC) system comprising:
determining a first heating or cooling demand for a
first zone of a space;
determining a second heating or cooling demand for
a second zone of the space;
determining that the first demand requires operation
of the HV AC system in a first mode, and that the
second demand requires operation of the HV AC system
in a second mode opposite the first mode, wherein the
second demand is simultaneous to the first demand; and
operating a simultaneous heat/cool algorithm for a
predetermined time duration to alternatingly operate the
HV AC system in the first mode for a first time portion
of the predetermined time duration to condition the first
zone and the second mode for a second time portion of
the predetermined time duration to condition the second
zone;
wherein a relative duration of operation in the first
mode and operation in the second mode is determined
based on the first heating or cooling demand and a first
heating or cooling capacity compared to the second
heating or cooling demand and a second heating or
cooling capacity;
wherein the first time portion plus the second time
portion sums to the predetermined time duration.

Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Hall US 4,200,910 Apr. 29, 1980
Yamagishi US 5,025,638 June 25, 1991
Riley US 5,303,767 Apr. 19, 1994
Seiden US 5,860,473 Jan. 19, 1999
Dazai US 2013/0014927 A1 Jan. 17, 2013
Takeshi JP 2003083657 (A) Mar. 19, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi and Dazai.
2. Claims 5, 7, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamagishi, Dazai, and Seiden.
3. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamagishi, Dazai, and Riley.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamagishi, Dazai, Riley, and Hall.
5. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamagishi, Dazai, and Takeshi.
Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
4
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 17
over Yamagishi and Dazai
Claims 1 and 13
Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims. Claims App. They are
substantially similar in scope except that claim 1 is a method claim and
claim 13 is a system claim. Id.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Dazai discloses that
relative duration of operation is based on, at least in part, on a comparison of
heating versus cooling capacity. Final Act. 4 (citing Dazai ¶ 46).
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding regarding the heating
and cooling capacity comparison limitation. Appeal Br. 5–6.
Dazai . . . only relates similar relative durations to heating
or cooling requirements, or demands, of multiple zones, not the
heating or cooling capacity of the HV AC system. More
specifically, at paragraph [0046] of the references, Dazai states:
“ . . . the hot air temperature setting value tSspH,
and the cold/hot air switching time interval T are set
based on the magnitude relationships between the
cooling requirements and the heating requirements at
that time . . . “
Dazai makes no mention of relating these switching time
intervals to heating or [SIC] cooling capacity of the HVAC
system, as required by Appellant's independent claims 1 and 13.
Id. at 6.
In response, the Examiner directs our attention to paragraph 46 of
Dazai and states that a heating and cooling capacity comparison is “implied”
therein. Ans. 13–14.
[I]t is implied that Dazai considers the “first heating or cooling
capacity” or the “second heating or cooling capacity,” because
one skilled in the art would necessarily conclude that a HVAC
Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
5
system would adjust the duration of the modes of operation
based upon the capacity of the system . . .
Id. at 14. The Examiner then directs our attention to paragraph 45 of Dazai
and states that:
Dazai teaches at 0045 that if it is not possible to satisfy a
cooling or heating requirement because of a lack of capability
i.e. capacity, the system would adjust heating setpoints or
cooling setpoints so that the system would overcome the state
of deficiency. Thus, one skilled in the art would conclude that
Dazai in its determination of the duration of operation modes
does considers or relates the first heating or cooling capacity
and the second heating or cooling capacity in this
determination.
Id.
In the Background section of Appellant’s Specification, Appellant
explains that it is known for HVAC systems to operate to heat and cool
multiple zones of a structure or space independently. Spec. ¶ 2. One of the
problems in the prior art identified by Appellant is the possibility that a
system could be stuck in cooling mode for a very long period of time
without satisfying the demand for cooling. Id. ¶ 4. In that situation, such a
system would be unable to address heating demand in other zones. Id. One
of the ways that Appellant addresses this concern is to factor in the
respective heating and cooling capacities of the system when implementing
an algorithm to switch between supplying heat and cold air to various zones.
Id. ¶ 22.
Dazai is directed to an HVAC control system. Dazai, Abstract. As
with the case of Appellant’s invention, it alternates between supplying
heating and cooling air to various zones depending on whether the
thermostats in such zones call for heating or cooling. Id. However, if a
Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
6
cooling requirement cannot be satisfied during the prescribed duration of a
cooling cycle at maximum supply air fan speed, Dazai compensates by
adjusting the supply air temperature. Id. ¶ 45. When there is a mixture of a
cooling requirement in one or more zones simultaneously with heating
requirement in one or more other zones, controller 8 switches between
supplying heating and cooling air. Id. ¶ 46. The parameters that are sent to
the controller for implementation by the control algorithm are: (1) hot air
temperature setting value; (2) cold air temperature setting value; (3) time
interval for switching between the hot and cold values; and (4) time interval
for executing switching control. Id.
[T]he cold air temperature setting value tSspC, the hot air
temperature setting value tSspH, and the cold/hot air switching
time interval T are set based on the magnitude relationships
between the cooling requirements and the heating requirements
at that time, where the cold air/hot air switching control
execution time interval TC is a time interval that is set in
advance.
Id.
Having reviewed paragraphs 45 and 46 of Dazai, we are unable to
agree with the Examiner that consideration of heating and cooling capacity
is to be inferred from the cited passages. Dazai explicitly identifies the
control parameters that are input to controller 8. Id. We find no basis for
the Examiner to infer or imply additional parameters. Instead, it appears to
us that, apart from adjusting supply air temperature, Dazai merely
exemplifies the problem in the prior art that Appellant identified in its
Background section and then attempts to overcome with the claimed
invention. We do not equate adjusting supply air temperature with factoring
heating or cooling capacity into a control algorithm.
Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
7
The Examiner’s findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence and, therefore, the Examiner’s legal conclusion of
unpatentability is not well-founded. In view thereof, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 17
These claims depend from either claim 1 or claim 13. Claims App.
As such, the Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that was identified above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Thus,
for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claims 1
and 13, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 17.
Unpatentability of Claims 5, 7–12, and 18–20
over Combinations Based on Yamagishi and Dazai
These claims depend from either claim 1 or claim 13 and are rejected
over Yamagishi and Dazai in combination with one or more additional
references. Final Act. 6–12.
In rejecting these claims, the Examiner relies on the same erroneous
finding of fact regarding Dazai’s capacity that caused us to reverse the
rejection of claims 1 and 13 as previously discussed. The Examiner makes
no additional findings with respect to the Seiden, Riley, Hall, or Maeda
references that would cure the deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 13
that we identified above.
Thus, for essentially the same reasons articulated above with respect
to claims 1 and 13, we do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 5, 7–12, and 18–20.

Appeal 2020-003535
Application 15/197,883
8
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6,
13, 14, 16
103 Yamagishi, Dazai 1, 2, 4, 6,
13, 14, 16
5, 7, 11,
12, 20
103 Yamagishi, Dazai, Seiden 5, 7, 11,
12, 20
8, 18 103 Yamagishi, Dazai, Riley 8, 18
9 103 Yamagishi, Dazai, Riley, Hall 9
10, 19 103 Yamagishi, Dazai, Takeshi 10, 19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–14,
16–20

REVERSED