Ex parte HEINRICHS et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 1998

08568146 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 6, 1995.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ANTON D. HEINRICHS and STANLEY R. GRANT
__________
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,1461
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-4, which constitute all of the
claims of record in the application.
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
2
The appellants’ invention is directed to a closed
refrigeration system in which refrigerant in the expanded
state is used to cool the compressor motor. The subject
matter before us on appeal is illustrated by reference to
claim 1, which reads as follows:
1. A closed refrigeration system serially including a
motor-compressor, a discharge line, a condenser, a heat
exchanger economizer, an expansion device, an evaporator and a
suction line, and temperature control means comprising:
means for sensing a parameter representative of operating
temperature of said motor;
means for supplying an expanded flow through said
economizer to said motor of said motor-compressor for cooling
said motor;
means for controlling said means for supplying an
expanded refrigerant flow responsive to said means for
sensing.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Shaw 4,947,655 Aug.
14, 1990
Heinrichs et al. (Heinrichs) 5,475,985 Dec.
19, 1995
(filed Dec. 14, 1993)
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
A copy of the PTO translation of this reference is2
enclosed.
3
Japanese Application 4-43261 Feb. 13,2
1992
(Kimura)
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
4
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heinrichs in view of Kimura and Shaw.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth
in the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art (In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). If the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned (In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
While the rejection states Kimura and Shaw, these3
references actually are applied in the alternative.
5
The objective of the appellants’ invention is to provide
improved cooling for the motor that drives the compressor in a
closed refrigeration system. Claim 1, the sole independent
claim, recites the components of a closed refrigeration
system, and includes “means for supplying an expanded flow” to
the motor-compressor for cooling the motor. As disclosed,
this comprises a subsystem including a temperature sensor and
processor which operate an expansion valve that can allow
liquid refrigerant exiting from an economizer to be expanded
to the gaseous state and then introduced into the motor to
cool the motor.
It is the examiner’s position that the subject matter of
claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of
Heinrichs in view of Kimura and Shaw. It is his view that3
Heinrichs teaches everything recited in claim 1, except for
the economizer, which would have obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the teachings of either of the
secondary references. We do not agree.
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
6
Like the appellants, Heinrichs wishes to utilize
refrigerant from the closed system to cool the motor, when
necessary. However, as the appellants have strongly argued,
Heinrichs utilizes liquid refrigerant to do so, rather than
the “expanded flow” required by claim 1. Heinrichs makes this
very clear in the specification. In column 1, the following
statement appears in the summary of the invention:
Basically, liquid injection is used to cool the
motor of a motor compressor responsive to the motor
temperature (column 1, lines 39 and 40, emphasis
added).
In going on to describe the preferred embodiments of the
invention, Heinrichs refers only to the flow of “liquid
refrigerant” into the motor for cooling (column 2, lines 24
and 32). The use of refrigerant in the expanded state is
disclosed, however, it is with regard to injecting refrigerant
into the compressor to control its exit gas temperature
(column 2, lines 34-39). Furthermore, both of Heinrichs’
claims recite that the refrigerant which cools the motor is in
the liquid state (column 2, line 56 and column 4, line 4).
Finally, while Heinrichs describes the valve that controls the
flow of refrigerant into the compressor as an expansion valve
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
7
(column 2, line 38), the valve that controls the flow of
refrigerant into the motor is designated merely as a “pulsed
solenoid valve” (column 2, line 2).
The examiner has recognized that “[t]he reference does
not use the language expanded flow in reference to the flow of
liquid refrigerant” (Answer, page 3, emphasis added).
However, it is his view that one of ordinary skill in the art
nevertheless would have known that the “pulsed solenoid valve
24" actually must be an expansion valve, for if the
refrigerant did not expand at that point it could not cool the
motor (Answer, page 4). We are not persuaded by this
conclusion, which is not based on any evidence and which flies
in the face of very definitive statements to the contrary
which appear in the text of the reference.
Since neither of the two secondary references provide any
teaching that would alleviate this shortcoming in Heinrichs,
it is our opinion that the teachings of the references relied
upon in the rejection fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 1. We
therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it
follows, of claims 2-4, which depend therefrom.
Appeal No. 97-2608
Application No. 08/568,146
8
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge)
David J. Zobkiw
Carrier Corporation
P.O. Box 4800
Syracuse, NY 13221