Ex Parte Fritz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2018

13480688 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/480,688 05/25/2012
23409 7590 04/24/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steve L. Fritz
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.
047177-9447-USOO 9730
EXAMINER
TANENBAUM, TZVI SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE L. FRITZ
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, KEN B. BARRETT, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steve L. Fritz ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision in the Non-Final Action (dated Dec. 14, 2015,
hereinafter "Non-Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Hussmann Corporation is identified as the real party in interest in
Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed July 14, 2016, hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "vapor-compression cooling
systems." Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, shown below, is
illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A heat exchanger assembly comprising:
a heat exchanger including
a plurality of tubes, each having an inlet end and
an outlet end;
an inlet header configured to receive a cooling
fluid along a flow direction and to distribute the cooling
fluid to the inlet ends of the plurality of tubes; and
an outlet header including an outer shell and
defining an outlet chamber, the outlet header attached
to the outlet ends of the tubes, the outlet chamber
configured to receive cooling fluid discharged from the
outlet ends of the plurality of tubes such that cooling
fluid flows from the tubes directly into the outlet header;
a supply conduit for supplying the cooling fluid to
the inlet header, the supply conduit including a conduit
portion extending through the outlet header, and the
supply conduit routed completely external to the heat
exchanger for a distance extending from the outlet header
where the supply conduit exits the outlet header to the
inlet header in the flow direction; and
an expansion valve coupled to the supply conduit
between an outlet of the conduit portion and the inlet
header in the flow direction.
2
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
II. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7, and 1 0-2 0 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dienhart et al. (US
6,189,334 Bl, issued Feb. 20, 2001, hereinafter "Dienhart"),
Trumbower et al. (US 2007/0039724 Al, published Feb. 22, 2007,
hereinafter "Trumbower"), and Styles et al. (US 2011/0239697 Al,
published Oct. 6, 2011, hereinafter "Styles").
III. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dienhart, Trumbower, Styles, and Palmer
(US 5,014,770, issued May 14, 1991).
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dienhart, Trumbower, Styles, and Kim et al.
(US 2011/0174469 Al, published July 21, 2011, hereinafter "Kim").
V. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dienhart, Trumbower, Styles, Palmer, and
Kim.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that the limitation of a "liquid conduit thermally
coupled to the at least portion of the suction header" is indefinite. Non-
Final Act. 3. 2 According to the Examiner, "although claim 1 7 recites a
2 The Examiner also finds the limitation "a liquid to suction heat
exchanger" recited in claim 17 to be indefinite. Non-Final Act. 3
3
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
suction header at least partially defined by the outlet header, it is unclear
what the at least portion of the suction header defined by the outlet header is
specifically referring to." Ans. 8.
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the [S]pecification." Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here,
Appellant's Specification describes "[a] supply conduit 286" and "[l]iquid
refrigerant passing through ... conduit portion 290" that "extend[ s] through
... outlet header portion 278" and "is subcooled by vapor refrigerant
contained within ... outlet header portion 278." Spec. para. 39, Fig. 8. As
such, Appellant is correct that the Specification describes that "the liquid
conduit [286] is thermally coupled to the outlet header [278], which defines
at least a portion of the suction header [278, 290]." Appeal Br. 8.
Accordingly, the disputed limitation is not indefinite. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Re} ection II
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Dienhart and
Trumbower disclose most of the limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and
17, but fail to disclose "an expansion valve coupled to the supply conduit
(emphasis omitted). However, in the Examiner's Answer (dated Nov.
17, 2016, hereinafter "Ans."), at page 7, the Examiner withdraws this
rejection.
4
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
between an outlet of the conduit portion and the inlet header in the flow
direction." Non-Final Act. 4--7. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Styles teaches an integrated heat exchanger assembly 210
wherein a fin-tube heat exchanger 211 and an internal
heat exchanger 212 are integrated into a single heat
exchanger assembly 210 used as a vehicle 20 evaporator
(see Fig. 1, 8; par. 5) and an expansion valve 213 is
coupled to a supply conduit between an outlet of a
conduit portion and an inlet header 214 in a flow
direction (see Fig. 8 and annotated Fig. 9).
Id.
Thus, the Examiner determines that
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention to modify Dienhart by
Styles to comprise an expansion valve coupled to the
supply conduit between an outlet of the conduit portion
and the inlet header in the flow direction (e.g. to use the
assembly 11 as an evaporator instead of a condenser by,
for example, switching compressor 10 and expansion
valve 12) with the motivation of improving the efficiency
of the entire vapor compression cycle because the
internal heat exchanger may utilize the remaining cooling
capability of the refrigerant just exiting from the
evaporator as much as possible, and the refrigerant
exiting from the evaporator does not absorb heat from the
ambient atmosphere (see Styles par. 5).
Id. at 9. 3
Appellant argues that "there is no objective reason - supported by the
references themselves or the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art - why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Dienhart as
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the alternative reasoning for modifying
the apparatus and method of Dienhart. See Non-Final Act. 9-12
(paras. 24--34 ); Ans. 7.
5
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
alleged by the Examiner." Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, "[t]he
alleged advantages that would be achieved by modifying Dienhart in view of
Styles are therefore already present in Dienhart as it is." Reply Brief 4
(dated Jan. 17, 2017, hereinafter "Reply Br."). 4
The reasoning provided by the Examiner-to "improv[ e] the
efficiency of the entire vapor compression cycle" (Non-Final Act. 9}-does
not support the conclusion of obviousness because the Examiner has not
shown the relevance of that rationale in the context of Dienhart's vapor-
compression cooling system. "[A] patent composed of several elements is
not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In other words, the mere fact that elements can be
combined is not, in itself, a reason to combine them. Rather, an obviousness
rejection further must explain the reasoning by which those findings support
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v.
Info USA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In this case, Dienhart discloses combining an internal heat exchanger
20 with a condenser 11 and a collector 14. Dienhart, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2. In
use, from condenser 11 compressed refrigerant flows into collector 14 and
then by way of connection 19 to expansion valve 12 and evaporator 13. Id.,
col. 2, 11. 59---64, Fig. 2. From evaporator 13, the refrigerant flows back into
collector 14 via inlet 21 and internal heat exchanger 20, and via outlet 22, to
compressor 10. Id., col. 2, 1. 65---col. 3, 1. 1, Fig. 2. As such, because the
4 Appellant did not provide page numbers on the Reply Brief. However, for
ease of referring to Appellant's arguments, we have assigned page numbers
1 through 6 to the Reply Brief.
6
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
refrigerant exiting evaporator 13 of Dienhart is rerouted into internal heat
exchanger 20, the refrigerant does not absorb heat from ambient
environment and, thus, its cooling capability is improved. Accordingly, as
Dienhart already employs an internal heat exchanger in its vapor-
compression cooling system, the reason proffered by the Examiner to
modify the teachings of Dienhart, namely, to "improve[ e] the efficiency of
the entire vapor compression cycle," appears to already be adequately
performed by Dienhart's system.
We appreciate the Examiner's position that "Styles specifically
teaches that using an integrated subcooler/evaporator combination results in
an advantageous vapor compression system for a vehicle." Ans. 9.
However, Appellant is correct in that "Styles addresses the advantages of
providing an internal heat exchanger over a system without an internal heat
exchanger, not the advantages over a system that has an internal heat
exchanger associated with the condenser as taught in Dienhart." Reply Br. 4
(emphasis added); see also Styles, paras. 4, 5. In other words, the Examiner
does not explain adequately that providing an internal heat exchanger to an
evaporator, as taught by Styles, would result in a more efficient vapor-
compression cooling system than Dienhart's internal heat exchanger and
condenser assembly.
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to articulate an apparent reason, with
rational underpinnings, why, in the absence of hindsight gleaned improperly
from Appellant's underlying disclosure, a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have modified Dienhart as proposed by the Examiner to arrive at
the subject matter of any of independent claims 1, 12, and 17.
7
Appeal2017-004269
Application 13/480,688
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1--4, 7, and 10-20 as
unpatentable over Dienhart, Trumbower, and Styles.
Rejections 111-V
The Examiner's use of the Palmer and Kim disclosures does not
remedy the deficiency of the Dienhart, Trumbower, and Styles combination
discussed supra. See Non-Final Act. 18-21. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain Rejections III-V.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8