Ex Parte Hegar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2017

13187077 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017)

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.
13/187,077 07/20/2011 Michal Hegar 20420.0231US01 5524
136306 7590 10/18/2017
IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2017 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):
ptomail @hsml. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAL HEGAR, MARKETA KOPECKA,
MICHAL KOLDA, and VACLAV RAJTMAJER
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,0771
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3—21, and 23—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, Thermo King Corporation is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
According to Appellants, their “invention relates to a method and
apparatus for defrosting a heat exchanger coil of a transcritical vapor
compression system.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are the independent
claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1, with formatting added, as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A method of defrosting a transcritical vapor
compression system operable in a cooling mode and a defrost
mode, the transcritical vapor compression system having a
compressor for compressing a refrigerant, the compressor having
a compressor inlet and a compressor outlet and operating at a first
speed/frequency during the cooling mode, a first heat exchanger
for cooling the refrigerant during the cooling mode, an expansion
valve for decreasing the pressure of the refrigerant, the expansion
valve having a variable opening, and a second heat exchanger for
cooling a space during the cooling mode, the method comprising:
decreasing the speed/frequency of the compressor during
the defrost mode to a second speed/frequency lower than the first
speed/frequency and greater than zero;
directing a superheated refrigerant gas from the
compressor to the first heat exchanger during the defrost mode,
then directing the superheated refrigerant gas from the first heat
exchanger to the expansion valve during the defrost mode, then
directing the superheated refrigerant gas from the expansion
valve to the second heat exchanger during the defrost mode; and
defrosting the second heat exchanger with the superheated
refrigerant gas.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okuda (US 2011/0041526 Al, pub. Feb. 24, 2011), Chen
2
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
(US 2008/0184715 Al, pub. Aug. 7, 2008), and Cann
(US 4,215,555, iss. Aug. 5, 1980);
II. claims 3—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okuda, Chen, Cann, and Swofford (US 2008/0148751 Al, pub.
June 26, 2008) (“Swofford ’751”);
III. claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okuda, Chen, Cann, Swofford ’751, and Singh
(US 2009/0077983 Al, pub. Mar. 26, 2009);
IV. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Chen, Cann, Swofford ’751, and Swofford (US 7,275,376 B2,
iss. Oct. 2, 2007) (“Swofford ’376”);
V. claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Chen, Cann, and Kuroki (US 6,418,737 Bl, iss. July 16, 2002);
VI. claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okuda, Chen, Cann, Kuroki, and Swofford ’751;
VII. claims 13, 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Okuda, Swofford ’751, and Chen;
VIII. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Swofford ’751, Chen, and Singh;
IX. claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Swofford ’751, Chen, and Kuroki;
X. claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okuda, Swofford ’751, Chen, and Swofford ’376;
XI. claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Cann, Swofford ’751, and Chen;
3
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
XII. claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Cann, Swofford ’751, Chen, and Singh;
XIII. claims 24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okuda, Cann, Swofford ’751, Chen, Singh, and Kuroki;
and
XIV. claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okuda,
Cann, Swofford ’751, Chen, Singh, Kuroki, and Swofford ’376.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
As set forth above, claim 1 recites, among other recitations,
directing a superheated refrigerant gas from the
compressor to the first heat exchanger during the defrost mode,
then directing the superheated refrigerant gas from the first heat
exchanger to the expansion valve during the defrost mode, then
directing the superheated refrigerant gas from the expansion
valve to the second heat exchanger during the defrost mode; and
defrosting the second heat exchanger with the superheated
refrigerant gas.
Appeal Br., Claims App. In claim 1 ’s rejection, the Examiner relies on
Okuda to teach directing a refrigerant gas, which is not superheated, from a
compressor and through a first heat exchanger, an expansion valve, and a
second heat exchanger. See, e.g., Final Action 2—3. The Examiner relies on
Cann to teach superheated refrigerant gas, and determines that it would have
been obvious to use superheated gas in Okuda’s arrangement, to defrost
Okuda’s second heat exchanger. See, e.g., id. at 3^4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
Okuda, in fact, expressly teaches directing a portion of the gas that is not
4
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
directed through a first heat exchanger and an expansion valve to defrost a
second heat exchanger (Appeal Br. 9—10), and, “[t]hus, it would not [have
been] obvious ... to modify Okuda by directing superheated refrigerant
through the sequence identified by the Examiner” (id. at 10). We agree with
Appellants. More specifically, as pointed out by Appellants, in Okuda
the compressor 2 absorbs and compresses refrigerant air and
directs the refrigerant air to the water-cooled heat exchanger 8
(see paragraph [0042] of Okuda). Part of the refrigerant air is
then sent to the exhaust heat recovery exchanger 14 for cooling
before being directed to the expansion turbine 16 (see paragraph
[0043] of Okuda). The refrigerant air in the expansion turbine 16
is expanded and cooled (see paragraph [0045] of Okuda) and
then discharged and directed to the bypass line 23 via the
defroster 18. Nowhere does Okuda teach or suggest that the
refrigerant air through this path can be used for defrosting.
Rather, at most, Okuda teaches that the refrigerant air through
this path is cooled (see paragraphs [0043 and 0046] of Okuda).
The other part of the refrigerant air is directed through the
bypass line 36 to bypass the exhaust heat recovery heat
exchanger 14 and the expansion turbine 16 and directed directly
to the defroster 18 (see paragraph [0047] of Okuda) in order to
effectively melt the frost within the defroster 18 (see paragraph
[0048] of Okuda). In fact, Okuda teaches the refrigerant air
supplied from the bypass line 36 to the defroster 18 is high in
temperature because it is directly supplied from the outlet side of
the compressor 2, and not cooled by the exhaust heat recovery
heat exchanger 14 and the expansion turbine 16 (see paragraph
[0048] of Okuda).
Id. at 9 (emphases added, brackets original). In view of Okuda’s teaching of
another path from compressor 2 which supplies gas to defrost defroster 18,
the Examiner does not provide an adequate reason with the required rational
underpinning to modify Okuda to defrost defroster 18 with superheated
refrigerant gas that has been directed through heat exchanger 8 and
5
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
expansion turbine 16. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (‘“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” (citation omitted)). Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or claim 9 that depends from
claim 1.
Rejections II—VI
Claims 3—8 and 10—12 depend from independent claim 1. Inasmuch
as the Examiner does not demonstrate that any other reference remedies the
above deficiency in claim 1 ’s rejection, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of these dependent claims.
Rejection VII
Independent claim 13 recites the following:
13. A transcritical vapor compression system, comprising:
a compressor for compressing a refrigerant, the
compressor having a compressor inlet and a compressor outlet;
a first heat exchanger for cooling the refrigerant;
an expansion valve for decreasing the pressure of the
refrigerant, the expansion valve having a variable opening;
a second heat exchanger for heating the refrigerant; and
a controller programmed to decrease the speed/frequency
of the compressor during a defrost mode, programmed to
determine a desired superheat temperature, programmed to
compare the desired superheat temperature with a measured
temperature proximate the compressor inlet, and programmed to
adjust the expansion valve based on the comparison between the
desired superheat temperature and the measured temperature
during the defrost mode.
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Swofford ’751
6
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
teaches controller programmed to determine a desired superheat
temperature [0026], [0031], programmed to compare the desired
superheat temperature with a measured temperature proximate
the compressor inlet [0033], and programmed to adjust the
expansion valve based on the comparison between the desired
superheat temperature and the measured temperature during the
defrost mode [0033].
Final Action 10 (brackets original). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
rejection is in error because Swofford ’751 ’s paragraph 33 does not disclose
measuring a temperature proximate a compressor inlet. See, e.g., Appeal
Br. 14. In response, the Examiner determines that in accordance with the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in view of Appellants’
Specification, Swofford ’751 need only disclose measuring a temperature
anywhere within a line that is connected to the compressor to teach
measuring a temperature proximate a compressor inlet. Answer 12.
Alternatively, the Examiner determines that Swofford ’751 “suggested . . .
the temperature . . . sensors may be provided at any suitable location and on
any suitable component to provide signals sufficient to control the superheat
temperature of the refrigerant.” Id. at 12—13. These determinations are not
sufficient to support adequately either the Examiner’s finding that
Swofford ’751 teaches measuring a temperature proximate a compressor
inlet, or that it would have been obvious, absent impermissible hindsight, to
measure temperature proximate a compressor inlet. See, e.g., Reply Br. third
and fourth pages. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 13, or claims 15, 16, and 20 that depend from
claim 13.
7
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
Rejections VIII—X
Claims 14 and 17—19 depend from independent claim 13. Inasmuch
as the Examiner does not demonstrate that any other reference remedies the
above deficiency in claim 13’s rejection, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of these dependent claims.
Rejection XI
Independent claim 21 recites the following:
21. A method of defrosting a transcritical vapor
compression system having a compressor for compressing a
refrigerant, a first heat exchanger for cooling the refrigerant
during a cooling mode, an expansion valve for decreasing the
pressure of the refrigerant, and a second heat exchanger for
cooling a space during the cooling mode, the method comprising:
decreasing a speed/frequency of the compressor during the
defrost mode;
attaining a superheated refrigerant condition in a defrost
mode of the transcritical vapor compression system;
defrosting the second heat exchanger in the defrost mode
by directing the superheated refrigerant to the second heat
exchanger without bypassing the first heat exchanger; and
maintaining the superheated refrigerant condition
proximate an inlet of the compressor.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is
erroneous because although the Examiner finds that Okuda teaches
defrosting defroster 18 by directing refrigerant to defroster 18, the claim
requires defrosting a heat exchanger, and “the Examiner [incorrectly]
interprets the defroster 18 of Okuda as the second heat exchanger.” Id.
at 17. Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner incorrectly relies on
defroster 18 to teach the claimed heat exchanger. Id. at 17—19. More
specifically, Appellants do not point to evidence in the Specification or
8
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
claims, or provide a line of reasoning, sufficient to convince us that
defroster 18 may not teach the claimed heat exchanger. Conversely,
defroster 18 “exchange[s] heat with the environment.” Answer 8.
Regardless, the Examiner also identifies cooled warehouse 22 as teaching
the claimed second heat exchanger, and Appellants do not argue that the
Examiner’s finding is erroneous, and, thus, do not demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s finding. Final Action 15 (“Okuda discloses ... a second heat
exchanger (18, 22).”). Appellants’ arguments as to why Okuda’s cooled
warehouse 22 fails to teach the claimed second heat exchanger (see Reply
Br. sixth page (unnumbered)) are not timely raised, and, thus, we do not
consider them (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv), § 41.41(b)(2)). Appellants’
further arguments in the Appeal Brief regarding claim 21 are directed to why
the other references also fail to disclose defrosting a second heat exchanger
as claimed, and, therefore, these arguments are also unpersuasive. See
Appeal Br. 18—19.
Rejections XII—XIV
Claim 23 depends from claim 21, and recites “comparing the
superheat temperature with a measured temperature proximate the
compressor inlet.” Appeal Br., Claims App. For reasons similar to those
discussed above with respect to claim 13, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 23.
Claims 24—27 depend from claim 23. Inasmuch as the Examiner does
not demonstrate that any other reference remedies the above deficiency in
claim 23’s rejection, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 24—27.
9
Appeal 2016-000689
Application 13/187,077
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3—
20, and 23-27.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 21.
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-IN-PART
10