DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2020

2020001104 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 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.
15/522,894 04/28/2017 Shinsuke IKAWA 2111-0136PUS1 6557
2292 7590 06/19/2020
BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
SULLENS, TAVIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2020 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHINSUKE IKAWA, AKIO TASAKA, YUUSUKE SHIONO,
SHINJI NAGAOKA, and DAISUKE TOYODA
____________

Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1 and 2, which are all of the
pending claims. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s “invention relates to an air conditioner using
flammable refrigerant.” Spec. ¶ 1. Particularly, the invention relates to
“[a]n air conditioner using flammable refrigerant, to which a refrigerant gas
sensor is attached.” Id. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal, and is reproduced below:
1. An air conditioner which includes an outdoor unit including a
compressor and an indoor unit connected with the outdoor unit
and uses flammable refrigerant, the air conditioner comprising:
a refrigerant gas sensor;
a first controller connected to the compressor and the
refrigerant gas sensor; and
a second controller connected to the first controller and
configured to perform an operation regarding driving of the air
conditioner, wherein
the first controller is configured to:
stop the compressor when the refrigerant gas sensor
detects refrigerant gas while the compressor is being
driven; and
after the compressor is stopped when the refrigerant
gas sensor detects the refrigerant gas, not start driving of
the compressor until an abnormality cancellation
operation is performed by the second controller indicating
that the refrigerant gas sensor has been replaced.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1.
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hessey US 4,787,212 Nov. 29, 1988
Tachigori et al.
(“Tachigori”)
US 6,073,455 June 13, 2000
Barito US 6,085,530 July 11, 2000
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tachigori, Barito, and Hessey.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the
Specification does not describe, in a way to reasonably convey to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, that the
Appellant had possession of the claimed invention, i.e., that the
Specification as filed had written description support for first and second
controllers. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that even if the Specification
discusses two controllers, it does not describe that the second controller
performs the abnormality cancellation operation as claimed, but is merely
used to perform the operation. See id.; Ans. 8. The Examiner further rejects
claim 2 because “it does not appear that Applicant’s originally filed
disclosure provides support for the [limitation that the] first controller is
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

4
configured to control the notification unit to continue the notification until
the abnormality cancellation operation is performed by the second
controller.” Final Act. 4.
The Appellant contends that the Specification provides adequate
description at paragraph 32 and Figure 7. See Appeal Br. 2–3; Reply
Br. 1–2.
The Specification discusses controlling unit 51, which the Appellant
equates to the first controller (Appeal Br. 2), that controls the fan, flap, and
shutter, “determines whether refrigerant leakage occurs based on a result of
detection of the refrigerant gas by the refrigerant gas sensor 9, stops the
compressor 1 upon detection of the refrigerant leakage, and displays
information indicating the occurrence of abnormality on the display 52”
(Spec. ¶ 32). Paragraph 32 further discusses controller 53, which the
Appellant equates to the second controller (Appeal Br. 2), and states “[b]y
using the controller 53, for example, start or stop of the driving of the air
conditioner and abnormality cancellation when the driving of the air
conditioner is abnormally stopped due to refrigerant leakage are performed,”
that “[t]he content of the operation is sent to the controlling unit 51,” and
that “the abnormality cancellation by using the controller 53 is cancellation
of abnormality,” that can be, for example, a special executable operation not
usually performed, such as a long press of a button (see also id. ¶¶ 35, 36).
“When the abnormality cancellation has been done by using the
controller 53 (S4: YES), the information indicating that the compressor is
stopped due to abnormality is no longer displayed on the display 52 (step
S5).” Id. ¶ 36. Figure 7 depicts “a control block of the indoor unit” (id.
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

5
¶ 16) with a block for controller 53 connected only to a block for controlling
unit 51 that is also connected to a block for display 52.
We agree with the Appellant (see Reply Br. 2) that the Specification
sufficiently describes support for the two controllers as recited in claim 1 –
controlling unit 51 and controller 53 – with controlling unit 51 configured to
stop the compressor and not start driving of the compressor until
controller 53 sends an indication to controlling unit upon abnormality
cancellation, i.e., controller 53 indicating the sensor has been replaced. We
also find that the Specification’s description of controlling unit 51 stopping
the display of the notification of abnormality after receiving the indication of
abnormality cancellation provides sufficient support for claim 2’s limitation
of “the first controller is configured to control the notification unit to
continue the notification until the abnormality cancellation operation is
performed by the second controller.” Appeal Br. Claims App. 1.
Thus, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the written
description rejections of claims 1 and 2.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The Appellant argues claims 1 and 2 as a group. See Appeal Br. 3, 5.
We select claim 1 as representative of the group with claim 2 standing or
falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in
error because the prior art does not teach the first controller being configured
to, after stopping the compressor when the sensor detects gas, “not start
driving of the compressor until an abnormality cancellation operation is
performed by using the second controller indicating that the refrigerant gas
sensor has been replaced.” Appeal Br. 4. Specifically, the Appellant
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

6
contends that “nowhere in Hessey is there any disclosure or suggestion of a
first controller configured to not re-start driving of the compressor until an
abnormality cancellation operation is performed by a second controller
indicating that the refrigerant gas sensor has been replaced.” Id. The
Appellant argues “Hessey only discloses a single controller which is reset by
operation of a switch, not an operation performed by a second controller as
claimed.” Id. The Appellant argues that Hessey’s thermostat does not
correspond to the claimed first controller and that Hessey’s switch resetting
the alleged second controller is not an action from the thermostat/first
controller. Id. at 5.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error
because they are arguments against Hessey individually and do not take into
account the teachings of Tachigori and Barito. The test for obviousness is
not what any one reference would have suggested, but rather what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Id.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Tachigori, Barito, and
Hessey for teaching the limitation recited in claim 1 that “the first controller
is configured to: . . . after the compressor is stopped when the refrigerant gas
sensor detects the refrigerant gas, not start driving of the compressor until an
abnormality cancellation operation is performed by the second controller
indicating that the refrigerant gas sensor has been replaced.” See Final
Act. 5–7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Tachigori teaches a first
controller configured to stop the compressor when the sensor detects a leak,
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

7
and acknowledges that Tachigori does not explicitly teach the limitation of
not starting the compressor until an abnormality cancellation is performed
by a second controller indicating the sensor has been replaced. Id. at 5. The
Examiner relies on Barito to teach an air conditioning unit with a sensor that
stops the compressor when an indication of a gas leak is detected, and “after
the compressor is stopped when the refrigerant gas sensor detects the
refrigerant gas, not start driving of the compressor until an abnormality
cancellation operation is performed indicating that the refrigerant gas sensor
has been replaced.” Id. Specifically, the Examiner cites to Barito at
column 2, lines 21–31 for teaching “the control will not allow the
compressor to be restarted until a service call is performed, which, since the
leak sensor is a fusible element, requires replacement of the sensor.” Id.
Acknowledging that Tachogori’s system as modified by Barito does
not teach “a second controller connected to the first controller and
configured to perform an operation regarding driving of the air conditioner,
and regarding the abnormality cancellation operation is performed by the
second controller,” the Examiner relies on Hessey to cure this deficiency.
Id. at 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hessey teaches a first
controller, i.e., thermostat 25, that turns the compressor on and off, that is
connected to a second controller, i.e., electrical control circuit 30, and “that
performs an operation regarding driving of the air conditioner.” Ans. 10
(citing Hessey, col. 2, ll. 47–58, col. 4, ll. 54–59, Fig. 1). The Examiner
further finds that Hessey’s “controller #30 does not send current to
thermostat #25 to allow reactivation of the compressor of the air
conditioning system until the switch on controller #30 is rearmed.” Id. The
Examiner makes clear that thermostat 25 is not relied on to teach the
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

8
Appellant’s claimed first controller or to reset Hessey’s control circuit 30.
Id. “Instead, Hessey is relied upon for the teaching of not restarting a
compressor until an abnormality cancellation operation is performed by (or
by using) a second controller (control circuit #30).” Id.
Tachigori discloses that when the air conditioner is normally
operating, if a sensor “detects the leakage of refrigerant from abnormal
variation in component or pressure of the refrigerant (step 1), an abnormal
state is indicated in step 2. Then, in step 3, the appliances are controlled.
One example of the control of the appliances is to stop the compressor.”
Tachigori, col. 7, ll. 36–43. Barito discloses a sealed compressor used in
refrigerant compressor applications comprising a sensor of a heat fuse
element that melts to indicate that the refrigerant has leaked, resulting in a
signal being sent to a control that “is preferably operable such that the
compressor cannot be restarted until a service call is made to the
compressor.” Barito, col. 2, ll. 17–29. Thus, we find supported the
Examiner’s findings that the combination of Tachigori and Barito teaches a
first controller configured to stop the compressor when a refrigerant gas leak
is detected and after, not start driving the compressor until the abnormality
cancellation operation indicates the sensor is replaced.
Hessey discloses an air conditioner comprising, in relevant part,
thermostat 25 and an electric control circuit 30
including a normally closed or armed circuitry for maintaining
flow of current to thermostat 25 for continued operation of the
air conditioner; a normally open or alarm circuitry for
inactivating the normally closed circuitry for automatically
shutting of the air conditioner upon an undesirable presence of
water other than in drain pan 15; and a bypass or override
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

9
circuitry for overriding the alarm circuitry for again effecting
operation of the air conditioner in an emergency.
Hessey, col. 2, ll. 24–25, 48–58. Control circuit 30 comprises, in relevant
part, an override switch 120 and excitable coil 235. See id. at col. 3,
ll. 7–29. Hessey further discloses that to reset control circuit 30 after the
alarm has gone off, the operator sets a switch to an override/reset position
and back to an on position. Id. at col. 4, ll. 54–57. This interrupts relay coil
235 and rearms control circuit 30, thus allowing for the current flow to
continue to the thermostat. Id. at col. 4, ll. 57–59; see also id. at col. 3,
l. 53–col. 4, l. 6 (discussing how an armed relay coil prevents current flow to
the thermostat for restarting the air conditioner). Thus, we find supported
the Examiner’s findings that Hessey teaches a second controller connected
to a first controller, the second controller configured to perform an operation
regarding driving of the air conditioner and sending an indication to a first
controller upon abnormality cancellation.
The Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings regarding
Tachigori and Barito. Other than the arguments regarding Hessey
individually, the Appellant has not provided adequate reasoning or argument
why the combination of Tachigori, Barito, and Hessey does not teach the
first controller being configured to, “after the compressor is stopped when
the refrigerant gas sensor detects the refrigerant gas, not start driving of the
compressor until an abnormality cancellation operation is performed by the
second controller indicating that the refrigerant gas sensor has been
replaced,” as recited in claim 1.
Thus, based on the record before us, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1, and thus also of claim 2, over Tachigori, Barito, and
Hessey.
Appeal 2020-001104
Application 15/522,894

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 2 is sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 112(a) Written description 1, 2
1, 2 103 Tachigori, Barito,
Hessey
1, 2
Overall
Outcome
1, 2
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED