11421078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

Ex Parte Crane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2014

11421078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/421,078 05/31/2006 Curtis Christian Crane 26432-0012-U1 2072 65885 7590 03/31/2014 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC 100 PINE STREET P.O. BOX 1166 HARRISBURG, PA 17108-1166 EXAMINER COX, ALEXIS K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2014 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 CURTIS CHRISTIAN CRANE, MARTIN L. DOLL, JR. and GLENN EUGENE NICKEY ________________ Appeal 2011-011019 Application 11/421,078 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2010) from the 1 Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-20.1 The Examiner rejects 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2010) claim 1 as being anticipated by Vaynberg 3 (US 5,570,585, issued Nov. 5, 1996); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2010) 4 claims 2-20 as being unpatentable over Vaynberg and Beaverson (US 5 6,691,525 B2, issued Feb. 17, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6 § 6(b) (2010). 7 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Johnson Controls Technology Company. Appeal 2011-011019 Application 11/421,078 2 We REVERSE. 1 Claims 1, 12 and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and 2 recites, with italics added for emphasis: 3 1. A method for controlling a discharge 4 pressure of a compressor relative to a suction 5 pressure of the compressor, the method comprising 6 the steps of: 7 measuring a discharge pressure and a 8 suction pressure of the compressor; 9 determining a predetermined maximum 10 discharge pressure for the compressor based on the 11 measured suction pressure, wherein the 12 predetermined maximum discharge pressure is less 13 than a maximum rated discharge pressure for the 14 compressor; 15 comparing the measured discharge pressure 16 with the predetermined maximum discharge 17 pressure; 18 unloading the compressor in response to the 19 measured discharge pressure exceeding the 20 predetermined maximum discharge pressure; and 21 after unloading the compressor, enabling 22 reloading of the compressor in response to the 23 measured discharge pressure being less than a 24 predetermined reload pressure for the compressor, 25 the predetermined reload pressure being based on 26 the measured suction pressure. 27 28 ISSUES 29 This appeal turns on one issue: 30 Does Vaynberg describe a method for controlling a 31 discharge pressure of a compressor relative to a suction 32 pressure of the compressor that includes unloading the 33 compressor in response to the measured discharge pressure 34 Appeal 2011-011019 Application 11/421,078 3 exceeding the predetermined maximum discharge pressure as 1 recited in claim 1? (See Br. 8-9). 2 3 FINDINGS OF FACTS 4 The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 5 preponderance of the evidence. 6 Vaynberg describes a refrigeration system 100 that includes first and 7 second compressors 1, 2. (Vaynberg, col. 4, ll. 25-31 and fig. 1). Vaynberg 8 describes transducers 70, 72 on a suction side of compressors 1, 2; and 9 transducers 74, 76 on the discharge side of the compressors. (Vaynberg, col. 10 6, ll. 26-33). The transducers 70, 72, 74, 76 generate electric signals 11 representative of the measured pressures at the inlet and outlet ports of the 12 compressors. (Vaynberg, col. 6, ll. 53-58). The transducers 70, 72, 74, 76 13 send the electric signals to a microprocessor 60. The microprocessor 60 14 computes the compression ratio for each compressor 1, 2. (Vaynberg, col. 6, 15 ll. 26-33 and fig. 2). Vaynberg teaches operating the compressors 1, 2 16 serially as a compound compressor system in a compound mode; or else 17 either separately or in parallel as a single stage compressor system in a 18 single compressor mode. (Vaynberg, col. 3, ll. 24-28 and col. 6, ll. 53-58). 19 The microprocessor 60, acting in response to the signals from the 20 transducers 70, 72, 74, 76, selectively opens and closes solenoid valves 11, 21 13 to operate the compressors 1, 2 in either a single compressor mode or a 22 compound mode. (Vaynberg, col. 6, ll. 20-25). 23 Once the refrigeration system 100 starts operating in a single 24 compressor mode, the system will continue to operate in that mode until the 25 compression ratio across the compressor or compressors as calculated based 26 Appeal 2011-011019 Application 11/421,078 4 on the signals from the transducers 70, 72, 74, 76 reaches a threshold 1 selected by a user. (Vaynberg col. 3, ll. 6-8 and col. 7, ll. 17-22). The 2 system will then operate in the compound mode. Once the refrigeration 3 system 100 starts operating in the compound mode, the system will continue 4 to operate in that mode as long as a compression ratio from the condenser to 5 the evaporator 5 remains above another threshold. (Vaynberg, col. 7, ll. 43-6 45). If the compression ratio drops below the other threshold, the 7 microprocessor 60 will stop one of the compressors so that the system 100 8 returns to a single compressor mode. (Vaynberg, col. 7, ll. 46-49). 9 10 ANALYSIS 11 The Examiner finds that switching from single compressor mode into 12 compound mode necessarily unloads the compressor which had operated in 13 the single compressor mode. (Ans. 11). More specifically, the Examiner 14 finds that Vaynberg discloses a “slowest speed” for each compressor; that 15 Vaynberg discloses operating both compressors within manufacturer’s 16 specifications to prevent breaking either compressor; and that operating a 17 compressor with too low a compression ratio will break it. (See id.) The 18 Examiner finds that, in order to prevent breakage when switching into the 19 compound mode, the newly-started compressor must receive its initial load 20 by unloading the compressor which had operated in the single compressor 21 mode. (Ans. 11-12). The Appellants disagree, arguing that the “Examiner 22 has not identified any disclosure in Vaynberg that references the loading or 23 unloading, i.e., changing the amount of refrigerant that flows through, the 24 first compressor.” (See Reply Br. 4; see generally id. 2-4). 25 The Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive. 26 Appeal 2011-011019 Application 11/421,078 5 To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must 1 make clear that the missing descriptive matter is 2 necessarily present in the thing described in the 3 reference, and that it would be so recognized by 4 persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, 5 may not be established by probabilities or 6 possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing 7 may result from a given set of circumstances is not 8 sufficient. 9 In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation 10 marks suppressed and citations omitted). 11 The Examiner has not articulated a sound basis for finding that it is 12 necessary to unload the first compressor when starting the second 13 compressor on entering the compound mode. The finding that “when the 14 second compressor of Vaynberg starts, it will not be a gradual increase from 15 a compression ratio of 1 to whatever the ultimate load is; the second 16 compressor will be started operating at a speed and compression ratio 17 sufficient to prevent it from breaking” is not persuasive. (Ans. 11-12; see 18 Reply Br. 2). Therefore, the Examiner has not articulated a persuasive 19 reason why the first compressor might not maintain its load to provide 20 sufficient refrigerant to the second compressor to operate efficiently in 21 series. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under § 102(b) as being 22 anticipated by Vaynberg. 23 The Examiner cites Beaverson as teaching several elements recited in 24 claims 2-20. (Ans. 6, 8, 9 and 17). Nevertheless, the Examiner does not 25 articulate reasoning to explain how the teachings of Beaverson might 26 remedy the deficiency of Vaynberg as applied to claim 1. We do not sustain 27 the rejection of claims 2-20 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 28 Vaynberg and Beaverson. 29 Appeal 2011-011019 Application 11/421,078 6 DECISION 1 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. 2 3 REVERSED 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 rvb 20