CARRIER CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2020

15034636 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
15/034,636 05/05/2016 Anthony S. Molavi 63459US02 (U300229US2) 2958
87059 7590 07/28/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
SANKS, SCHYLER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2020 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 ANTHONY S. MOLAVI, MICHEL GRABON, and CHARBEL
RAHHAL
Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 12, 13, 15–17, and 19–23.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Carrier Corporation.
Br. 1.
2 Claims 1–11, 14, and 18 are withdrawn. See Br. 1; Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a chiller system with a heated sump in
which separation of refrigerant from the oil occurs. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
12. A chiller system, comprising:
a first storage container configured to store a mixture of
refrigerant and a liquid;
a vaporizer connected to the first storage container to
receive the mixture of refrigerant and liquid from the first storage
container, the vaporizer configured to vaporize the refrigerant to
separate the refrigerant from the liquid;
a sump configured to collect the liquid in a trough formed
by a junction of two diagonal sides of the sump, the sump
including a heating element in the trough to heat the liquid; and
a compressor connected to the vaporizer and the sump to
receive the refrigerant from the vaporizer and the liquid from the
sump.
Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rosenblad US 4,216,002 Aug. 5, 1980
Shoulders US 6,550,258 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
Huenniger US 6,672,102 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Holmes US 2008/0271477 A1 Nov. 6, 2008

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 21–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
3

II. Claims 12, 13, 15–17, and 19–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huenniger, Rosenblad, and Shoulders.
III. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Huenniger, Rosenblad, Shoulders, and Holmes.

OPINION
Rejection I–Indefiniteness (Claims 21–23)
The Examiner determined that dependent claim 21 is indefinite
“because it is unclear if the liquid rectifier and sump are the same or
different structures based on the disclosure of the invention.” Final Act. 5.
In this regard, the Examiner notes that paragraph 38 of the Specification
states that the sump may be referred to as a rectifier.3 Claims 22 and 23
were rejected based on their dependency from claim 21. Final Act. 5.
On April 16, 2019, after receiving a Final Rejection of claims 12, 13,
15–17, and 19–23, Appellant filed an Amendment (hereinafter the “After-
Final Amendment”) changing the language in claim 21 in an attempt to
address the indefiniteness rejection. See After-Final Amendment 4, 6; Br. 1.
On July 25, 2019, the Examiner issued an Advisory Action denying entry of
the After-Final Amendment. See Advisory Act. 1. Appellant’s Brief
includes no arguments contesting the rejection of claims 21–23 as indefinite.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection.

3 Independent claim 12 recites that the chiller system comprises a “sump,”
and claim 21, which depends from claim 12, recites “the chiller system
further comprises: a liquid rectifier.” Last entered Amendment (filed on
September 26, 2018) 3, 4.
Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
4

Rejection II–Unpatentablity over Huenniger, Rosenblad, and Shoulders
(Claims 12, 13, 15–17, and 19–22)
The Examiner finds that Huenniger discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 12, including a vaporizer (vaporizer 38) and a sump with a
trough (sump 48/112), but does not disclose that sump 48/112 includes a
heating element in a trough to heat liquid contained in the trough.4 Final
Act. 6; Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Shoulders discloses a sump
(reservoir 40) that includes a heating element (heating element 44) in a
trough for the purpose of separating refrigerant from oil. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 4–5 (citing Shoulders 3:24–67, 4:1–37). The Examiner also finds that
both Huenniger and Shoulders disclose compressor systems in which
structure is provided to separate refrigerant from oil. Final Act. 11; Ans. 5.
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to add a heating element
as taught by Shoulders to the sump disclosed by Huenniger to perform the
same function the heating element performs in Shoulders, namely, to
separate refrigerant from oil. Final Act. 6.
First, Appellant argues “[b]oth Huenniger and Shoulders disclose
using a heating element as part of a vaporizer, but not using a heating
element in a liquid sump as recited in claim 12.” Br. 5.
We disagree with this argument for the following reasons. First,
Appellant concedes that “[t]he heating element 44 in Shoulders is used to
vaporize the refrigerant contained in an oil/refrigerant mix in a reservoir

4 The Examiner relies on Rosenblad to teach a trough having diagonal sides
(Final Act. 6), and Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings
regarding Rosenblad or the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Huenniger
based on Rosenblad (Br. 5–6).
Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
5
40.” Br. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds reservoir 40 of Shoulders
is a liquid sump. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5.
Second, Shoulders teaches that “[c]ontents of reservoir 40, including
oil 42, are heated by electrical heater 44 under the control of
microprocessor 90 responsive to the temperature and/or pressure in oil
reservoir 40.” Shoulders 3:13–16 (emphasis omitted). Shoulders also states
that, “[w]hen the temperature of reservoir 40, as sensed by temperature
sensor 46, falls below a pre-selected value, microprocessor 90 energizes
heater 44 and maintains power to heater 44 until such time as the
temperature of reservoir 40 rises above a pre-selected value.” Id. 4:22–27
(emphasis omitted). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s
finding that Shoulders “teaches the sump including a heating element in the
trough to heat the liquid (see Figure l, sump 40, heating element 44 within
the trough of 40) in order to draw additional refrigerant from the liquid”
(Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted)) is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Next, Appellant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art modifying
Huenniger would have added an electric heater only to vaporizer 38, not to
sump 48. Br. 5. Appellant asserts, “[t]his is consistent with the teaching of
Huenniger in column 5, lines 1-5, which states ‘[f]urther, an electric heater
could be provided associated with the vaporizer to vaporize the liquid
refrigerant when the normal use of the heated refrigerant as set forth in this
application is shut down, or is insufficient for some other reason.’” Id.
This argument does not apprise us of Examiner error. The Examiner’s
reasoning for modifying sump 48 of Huenniger to include a heating element
in order to draw additional refrigerant from the oil (Final Act. 6) is
supported by Shoulders’ disclosure. See Shoulders 3:24–67, 4:1–37. In this
Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
6
regard, Shoulders discloses removing refrigerant from oil in oil separator 15
(Shoulders 3:40–43) and then removing more refrigerant from the oil in
reservoir 40 (Shoulders 4:27–31). The fact that Huenniger explicitly
suggests adding an electric heater to its vaporizer 38, which is upstream of
sump 48, does not undermine the Examiner’s finding that adding a heater to
Huenniger’s sump 48 would also provide a benefit (namely, the above-noted
benefit of removal of additional refrigerant from the oil, disclosed by
Shoulders in a similar compressor system). Appellant does not contest that
this improvement to Huenniger’s system would have been the expected
result of the Examiner’s proposed modification. See Br. 5–6. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Huenniger,
Rosenblad, and Shoulders. Appellant makes no additional arguments in
support of the patentability of claims 13, 15–17, and 19–22, and these claims
fall with claim 12.
Rejection III–Unpatentablity over Huenniger, Rosenblad, Shoulders, and
Holmes (Claim 23)
Claim 23 depends from claim 12, and Appellant does not provide any
additional arguments contesting the rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable
over Huenniger, Rosenblad, Shoulders, and Holmes. See Br. 5–6.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above regarding Rejection II,
we sustain Rejection III.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

Appeal 2020-000143
Application 15/034,636
7

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
21–23 112(b) Indefiniteness  21–23
12, 13, 15–
17, 19–22
103(a) Huenniger, Rosenblad,
Shoulders 
12, 13, 15–
17, 19–22

23 103(a) Huenniger, Rosenblad,
Shoulders, Holmes
23
Overall
Outcome
12, 13, 15–
17, 19–23

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED