Ex Parte Clark

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

12943626 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/943,626 11/10/2010
27572 7590 07/16/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
E. Todd Clark
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5264-000029/US 4046
EXAMINER
COTHRAN, BERNARD E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte E. TODD CLARK
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1---6, 8-16, and 18-20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7 and 17
have been cancelled.
WeAFFIRM. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES
RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed June 26, 2017 ("App.
Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed November 20, 2017 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed September 19, 2017 ("Ans."); and Final Office
Action mailed November 4, 2016 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A system for detecting refrigerant leak in a refrigeration
system comprising:
a refrigerant level sensor that senses a level of refrigerant
in the refrigeration system and generates refrigerant level data
based on the level of refrigerant;
a plurality of system sensors that sense conditions
corresponding to the refrigeration system and generate sensed
system data based on the sensed conditions, the sensed system
data including at least one of ambient temperature data,
condenser temperature data, and discharge pressure data;
a model database that stores a plurality of models defining
expected refrigerant levels based on previously recorded system
data, wherein each of the models has an upper control limit, a
lower control limit, and at least one system data limit associated
therewith;
a model selecting module that compares the sensed system
data with the at least one system data limit for each model in the
plurality of models and selects a model from the model database
based on the comparison;
a refrigerant level prediction module that generates an
expected refrigerant level based on the sensed system data and
the selected model; and
a notification module that generates a notification when a
difference between the expected refrigerant level and the
refrigerant level reading is one of greater than the upper control
limit and less than the lower control limit of the selected model.
Aloise
References
us 5,666,815
2
Sept. 16, 1997
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
Morikawa
Singh
Larsen
Nikovski
US 2006/0229739 Al
US 2007 /0089434 Al
US 2008/0000241 Al
US 7,444,251 B2
Examiner's Rejections
Oct. 12, 2006
Apr. 26, 2007
Jan.3,2008
Oct. 28, 2008
Claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Singh, Aloise, and Morikawa. Final Act. 9-16.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Singh, Aloise, Morikawa, and Nikovski. Id. at 16-
18.
Claims 6 and 163 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Aloise, Morikawa, Nikovski, and Larsen. Id.
at 18-20.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
"a refrigerant level sensor"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Singh teaches "a
refrigerant level sensor that senses a level of refrigerant in the refrigeration
system and generates refrigerant level data based on the level of refrigerant,"
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 4---6. Specifically, Appellant argues "the Examiner points to the
3 The Examiner includes claims 7 and 17 in this rejection. Final Act. 18, 20.
However, claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled. App. Br. 17, 20.
Accordingly, we do not address claims 7 and 17.
3
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
suction pressure sensor 118 and the discharge pressure sensor 124, which
measure pressures in the suction manifold 106 and the discharge header 108,
and interprets these pressure sensors as sensing a refrigerant level." App.
Br. 11. According to Appellant, however, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood "refrigerant pressure within the refrigeration system is
separate and distinct from refrigerant level within the system." Reply Br. 5;
see also App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on Singh's disclosure of
"suction manifold 106 includ[ing] ... pressure sensor 118" and "discharge
header 108 includ[ing] an associated pressure sensor 124." Singh ,r,r 51, 54,
cited in Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 15. The Examiner points out that
"determining the pressure of a refrigerant system allows a way to
determine ... a refrigerant level." Ans. 15. That is, the Examiner finds that
a refrigerant level is determined by considering sensed pressure information.
Indeed, Singh discloses that "a first refrigerant charge monitoring block
3600 receives ... Pd," i.e., pressure information, "as input[]" and then the
"first refrigerant charge monitoring block 3600 generates RLHRLYAVG,
RLDAILYAva," i.e., refrigerant levels, "based on the inputs." Singh ,r 118,
cited in Final Act. 1 O; see Singh ,r 116, cited in Final Act. 9. Even further,
the Examiner highlights that Singh's "receiver refrigerant level (RLREc)"
teaches a "refrigerant level reading." Final Act. 10 (citing Singh ,r 118).
Receiver refrigerant level RLREc is a "measurement" (see Singh ,r 62), i.e., a
"sense[ d] ... level of refrigerant," as recited in claim 1, that is included with
the inputs that generate Singh's RLHRLYAVG, RLDAILYAVG refrigerant levels
(Singh ,r 118).
4
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
We further note that Appellant acknowledges that Singh "describes a
reservoir level indicator" and that Singh "describes that the 'refrigerant level
in the receiver can widely vary throughout a given day.'" Reply Br. 5-6
(citing Singh ,r,r 116-117).4 In particular, Singh discloses: "Refrigerant
level within the refrigeration system 100 is a function of refrigeration load,
ambient temperatures, defrost status, heat reclaim status and refrigerant
charge. A reservoir level indicator (not shown) reads accurately when the
system is running and stable and it varies with the cooling load." Singh
,r 116. This disclosure in Singh, cited by Appellant, teaches sensing a level
of refrigerant using a "reservoir level indicator." Singh further discloses
"hourly and daily refrigerant level averages (RLHRLYAVG, RLDAILYAva) are
monitored." Singh ,r 117; Final Act. 10. Therefore, we are not persuaded
Singh fails to teach a "refrigerant level sensor," as recited in claims 1
and 11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Singh teaches "a refrigerant level sensor that senses a level of refrigerant in
the refrigeration system and generates refrigerant level data based on the
level of refrigerant," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
"models defining expected refrigerant levels"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Aloise teaches "a
model database that stores a plurality of models defining expected
refrigerant levels," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
App. Br. 11-13. Specifically, Appellant argues "the 'vapor pressure
4 Although Appellant cites paragraphs 16 and 17 of Singh, the cited
disclosure of Singh appears in paragraphs 116 and 117.
5
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
models' described in Aloise simply correlate vapor pressure with vapor
temperature and are untethered to refrigerant level in a refrigeration system."
Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded. Similar to the argument addressed above,
Appellant's arguments here rely on the premise that pressure sensor data
does not teach refrigerant levels. See id. As discussed supra, however, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Singh's disclosures regarding
pressure information and received refrigerant levels teaches "sens[ing] a
level of refrigerant," as recited in claims 1 and 11. Ans. 15; Final Act. 9.
The Examiner relies on (Final Act. 11-12) Aloise's description of "vapor
pressure models for all expected refrigerants," which "include[] a listing of
vapor pressures for a plurality of vapor temperature points at saturated
conditions" (Aloise 3:29-37). As such, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that the combination of Singh, teaching refrigerant levels, and
Aloise, teaching models of expected refrigerant, teaches "models defining
expected refrigerant levels." Final Act. 12-13.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Singh and Aloise teaches "a model database that stores a
plurality of models defining expected refrigerant levels," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
"selects a model ... based on the comparison"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Morikawa teaches
"a model selecting module that compares the sensed system data with the at
least one system data limit for each model in the plurality of models and
selects a model from the model database based on the comparison," as
6
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 13-14; Reply
Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellant argues Morikawa "selects a prediction
model that corresponds to a particular target sensor," but, Appellant
contends, that "selection is not based on a comparison of sensed system data
with at least one system data limit for each model in a plurality of models."
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner determines Morikawa's
"selection of a candidate operation for attaining a target state" teaches
"select[ing] a model." See Ans. 18 (citing Morikawa ,r 75); see also Final
Act. 8, 13. That is, the Examiner finds Morikawa's selected candidate
operations teach selected "models." For example, Morikawa teaches
selecting "two candidates" which "are sent to the evaluation section."
Morikawa ,r,r 75-79. The Examiner further finds (Ans. 18), and we agree,
that the selection of those candidate operations is based on a comparison of
Morikawa's "target value," i.e., a "system data limit," with "a sensor
output," i.e., "sensed system data" (Morikawa ,r 75). As Appellant points
out, the "operation of a selected model in Morikawa results in a current state
most closely matching a target state" (Reply Br. 2), i.e., currently sensed
state data is matched with a target value. Indeed, Morikawa teaches that
candidate operations are selected via prediction section 33, which accepts
sensed system data through signal selection section 25. Morikawa ,r 49,
Fig. 3.
Appellant's arguments discussing "[t]he Morikawa model selection
section [32's]" selection of potential models based on a target value (App.
Br. 13; see Morikawa Fig. 3) do not address prediction section 33's selection
of candidate operations based on the comparison of sensor output to a target
7
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
value (Morikawa ,r,r 75-78). Further, Appellant's argument that "allow[ing]
an output of the target sensor to be the target value" does not teach
"compar[ing] the sensed system data with the at least one system data limit"
(Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive. The target sensor output senses temperature
or humidity, for example (Morikawa ,r,r 67---68, 76 ("the temperature and the
humidity can be brought into the respective target ranges")), and so teaches
"sensed system data." Morikawa's target value defines a desired
temperature or humidity range (id.) and, therefore, teaches a "system limit."
The target sensor output is compared with the target value because
Morikawa selects its candidate operations based on the target sensor output
matching the target value. Id. ,r,r 75-76.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Morikawa teaches "a model selecting module that compares the sensed
system data with the at least one system data limit for each model in the
plurality of models and selects a model from the model database based on
the comparison," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
Additionally, Appellant does not provide separate arguments for claims 2---6,
8-10, 12-16, and 18-20, which depend from claims 1 and 11. See App. Br.
14--15. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1-6, 8-
16, and 18-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 8-13, and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, Aloise, and
Morikawa.
8
Appeal2018-001280
Application 12/943,626
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 14, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singh, Aloise,
Morikawa, and Nikovski.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singh, Aloise, Morikawa,
Nikovski, and Larsen.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9