Ex Parte Hellmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

14396284 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/396,284 12/17/2014 Sascha Hellmann
87059 7590 12/18/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
P A-0020869-US 6799
EXAMINER
MA,KUNKAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SASCHA HELLMANN and
HANS-JOACHIM HUFF
Appeal 2018-002696
Application 14/396,284
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 3-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is Carrier Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-002696
Application 14/396,284
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cooling system. Claim 1, reproduced
below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cooling system comprising:
a refrigeration circuit circulating a refrigerant and
comprising in the flow direction of the refrigerant:
at least one compressor;
at least one condenser;
at least one expansion device; and
at least one evaporator for providing a cooling capacity;
the cooling system further comprising:
a subcooling circuit for subcooling the refrigerant
circulating in the refrigeration circuit, the subcooling circuit
being configured to circulate a subcooling refrigerant and
comprising at least one subcooler compressor;
at least one heat exchange means being arranged
downstream of the at least one condenser and being configured
for heat exchange between the refrigeration circuit and the
subcooling circuit, the at least one heat exchange means
comprising at least one temperature sensor; and
a control unit which is configured for controlling the at
least one compressor of the refrigeration circuit and the at least
one subcooler compressor of the subcooling circuit such that the
cooling capacity to be provided by the at least one evaporator is
met and such that the temperature at the at least one heat
exchange means measured by at least one temperature sensor is
in a predetermined range;
wherein the control unit is configured to run a minimum
number of the at least one compressor of the refrigeration circuit
and to run the at least one subcooler compressor of the
subcooling circuit so that that [sic] the cooling capacity to be
provided by the at least one evaporator is met and so that the
overall power consumption is reduced.
2
Appeal 2018-002696
Application 14/396,284
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Aaron (U.S. 5,386,709, issued Feb. 7, 1995) in view of
Hurst (U.S. 2005/0244277 Al, published Nov. 3, 2005).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Aaron, Hurst, Takenaka (U.S. 2012/0042674 Al, published Feb. 23,
2012), and Duraisamy (U.S. 2008/0078203 Al, published Apr. 3, 2008).
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Aaron as teaching the basic elements or steps
of independent claims 1 and 15, respectively. Aaron does not appear to show
any more than the acknowledged prior art subcooling arrangement. See
Application Fig. 1; Aaron Fig. 4. For the subcooling control system
limitation emphasized above in claim 1 and found in method form in claim
15, the Examiner relies on Hurst. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Hurst Fig. 3, paras.
6, 59).
The Examiner correctly points out that, generally speaking,
nonobviousness is not demonstrated by an attack on individual references
where the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of those references.
Ans. 2. Although the Examiner relies on Aaron for the subcooling
arrangement, and it is conceivable that the Examiner could have
demonstrated obviousness without citation to a secondary reference
involving the control of subcooling circuits, the Examiner here does not
explain, and it is not apparent, why a person skilled in the art would regard
Hurst's teachings regarding compressors (112, 112') in a particular cooler
having parallel compressors, or in separate parallel coolers (Hurst Fig. 3)
3
Appeal 2018-002696
Application 14/396,284
(i.e., frozen, dairy, meat sections (Hurst para. 29)), as being relevant to
compressor load allocation in a subcooling arrangement, which works by
having compressors essentially in series to increase the efficiency of one
main cooling circuit.
Moreover, even if Hurst's control technique is somehow relevant, the
Examiner does not explain, and it is not apparent, how cited paragraphs 6
and 59 (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3) would teach using the minimum number of
compressors as recited in each of claims 1 and 15. 2 All words in a claim
must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). This does not appear
to have been done because no explanation or analysis demonstrating how the
argued aspect of the claims would be satisfied by Hurst's teachings is
expressly set forth by the Examiner. A rejection must be set forth in a
sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice
requirement of§ 132, such as by identifying where or how each limitation of
the rejected claims is met by the prior art references. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) ("When a
reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that
claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as
nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must
2 We recognize that there is a discussion in the paragraphs that follow
paragraph 59 about how fixed compressors (112) are turned on, and variable
compressors (112') ramped up, in response to demand. However, it is not
readily apparent whether such control satisfies the claim language
emphasized in claim 1 and, as the Examiner does not appear to have placed
any reliance on these portions of Hurst, we have not been adequately briefed
on this issue. We, therefore, do not consider these portions of Hurst as
forming the basis for the Examiner's rejection before us for review.
4
Appeal 2018-002696
Application 14/396,284
be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified."); Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (PTO must create a record
that includes "specific fact findings for each contested limitation and
satisfactory explanations for such findings.").
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
5