Ex Parte Jassani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2018

13700240 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/700,240 03/15/2013
116 7590 06/15/2018
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ahmed Al Jassani
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.
ABE-50399 8690
EXAMINER
NIEVES, NELSON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2018 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):
patdocket@peame.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMED AL JASSANI and HAKAN L. KARLSSON
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a Decision on Appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16. App. Br. 5. Claims
2 and 9 have been canceled. App. Br. 10, 11 (Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to dry cleaning systems namely
washing machines using dry solvents such as carbon dioxide." Spec. 1 :4--5.
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
Apparatus claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An apparatus for cleaning articles comprising,
a compressor unit (2) for processing a fluid,
a regulator (7) associated with the compressor unit (2), for
increasing pressure of the fluid between the compressor unit (2)
and the regulator (7),
a storage device for storing the fluid,
a cleaning chamber for cleaning articles, and
a distillation unit;
wherein a cooling unit (3) comprising water as a coolant
is arranged between the compressor unit (2) and the regulator (7)
for cooling of the fluid,
wherein the storage device is arranged downstream from
the regulator between the regulator and the cleaning chamber,
and
wherein the distillation unit is arranged between the
compressor unit and the cooling unit.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Shore et al.
Wright et al.
Ahlborn et al.
us 5,970,554
US 2006/0260065 Al
US 2007 /0256706 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Oct. 26, 1999
Nov. 23, 2006
Nov. 8, 2007
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Ahlborn and Wright.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ahlborn, Wright, and Shore.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-7, and 12-15 together (App. Br. 5-8)
and claims 8, 10, 11, and 16 together (App. Br. 8-9) despite the differences
2
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
in the art relied upon in their respective rejections. We select independent
claims 1 and 8 for review. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). However,
regarding claim 8, Appellants rely on the arguments previously presented
with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 8. Hence, we address claim 1 below, with
the remaining claims (i.e., claims 3-8 and 10-16) standing or falling with
claim 1.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Ahlborn for all the limitations with the exception that "Ahlborn
does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the cooling unit (9)
comprises water as coolant" (Final Act. 3), though the Examiner does find
that Ahlborn teaches generally to "use water as a cooling medium" (Final
Act. 9 (citing Ahlborn ,r 62)). For the noted limitation, the Examiner relies
on Wright as teaching "a cleaning apparatus wherein the cooling unit (see at
least 1 49, 'condenser') comprising water as coolant." Final Act. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner states, "[t]he general concept of using water as a
cooling medium ... falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious
mechanical expedient." Final Act. 3; see also id. at 9. Thereafter, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified
Ahlborn to use water as coolant because "doing so would have been to
provide a cooling medium with easy access by the user." Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend that if Ahlborn were modified as suggested (i.e.,
"by replacing the carbon dioxide in cooling unit (9) with water"), "the
system would no longer be a dry-cleaning system" and as such, "the
proposed modification would entirely change the principle of operation of
the dry cleaning system disclosed in Ahlborn." App. Br. 6; see also Reply
Br. 3. Appellants further state, "[i]t is not clear how Ahlborn could use
3
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
water as a cooling medium without replacing the carbon dioxide" in cooling
unit 9. App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2.
In response, the Examiner explains, "[t]he Examiner has not
suggested a replacement of the CO2 for water." Ans. 3; see also Final Act.
9. Instead, the Examiner notes that Ahlborn teaches that cooling loop 9 can
be either "inside or outside the cleaning chamber 8." Ahlborn ,r 61; see also
Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner reasons, "[i]f the cooling loop is placed outside
the cleaning chamber" then there is a need for "a coolant or some other type
of fluid to directly exchange heat with the compressed CO2 [in the outside
loop] and then move the heat to the CO2 in the cleaning chamber." Ans. 3.
The Examiner observes, "Fig. 3 of Ahlborn gives an example when
the cooling loop is placed outside the cleaning chamber." Ans. 3. The
Examiner states, "heat exchanger 12 would be analogous to the outside
cooling loop 9" and, "[t]he Examiner notes that ,r 66 [of Ahlborn] states
'Water is passed through an external heat exchanger 12. '" Ans. 3. Indeed,
Paragraph 66 of Ahlborn states, "water heated up in external heat exchanger
12 is then passed through heat exchanger 10 in order to heat up the cleaning
chamber 8." 1 See also Ahlborn Fig. 3. In summation, the Examiner states,
"[ s Jo arguably a person of ordinary skill in the art could have look[ ed] to the
embodiment of Fig. 3 and come to the conclusion so as to use water as a
coolant to cool the compressed CO2" within an outside cooling loop. Ans.
3. In view of the above, Appellants' contention that "Fig. 3 of Ahlborn does
1 Further, Paragraph 66 of Ahlborn states that external heat exchanger 12 is
"heated up in indirect heat exchange with warm carbon dioxide gas leaving
the gas compressor 4." Paragraph 61 of Ahlborn states that the carbon
dioxide gas leaving compressor 4 is that gas delivered to cooling unit 9,
which can be either inside or outside the cleaning chamber.
4
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
not contain a component analogous to the [outside] cooling unit 9," is not
persuasive of Examiner error. Reply Br. 2. Nor is Appellants' contention
persuasive that "the cooling systems in both rely on entirely different
principles." Reply Br. 2, 3. This is because Ahlborn teaches that it does not
matter whether the heat delivered to the cleaning chamber is via a principle
involving compressed carbon dioxide or a principle involving water. See
supra.
Hence, in view of the above, Appellants' mis-understanding of the
Examiner's rejection (i.e., "replacing the carbon dioxide in cooling unit 9
with water" and "to include water as the coolant in the cooling unit 9") is not
persuasive of Examiner error. App. Br. 6.
Appellants further contend that modifying Ahlborn as proposed
"'would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements'
shown in Ahlborn." App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3 (both referencing In re Ratti,
270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959)). However, this argument is not persuasive
since it is Ahlborn itself that discloses the alternate use of water as a medium
to provide heat to the cleaning chamber. See also Ans. 4. Further,
Appellants provide no evidence that such a redesign is outside the skill of a
person of ordinary skill in the art. "A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Appellants also contend, "[t]he carbon dioxide that passes through the
cooling unit 9 in Ahlborn is the same carbon dioxide that is used to clean
garments in the cleaning chamber 8, distilled in still 2, and stored in storage
tank 1." Reply Br. 2. However, it is clear the Examiner is suggesting an
additional manner by which to deliver heat from the compressed carbon
5
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
dioxide in the outside loop to within the cleaning chamber. See Ans. 3.
Thus, although the medium of carbon dioxide in cooling loop 9 may be "the
same" as the medium in cleaning chamber 8, it is of no importance.
Appellants additionally address Paragraph 62 of Ahlborn arguing that
this paragraph "does not disclose or suggest using water as a coolant for
cooling unit 9." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner
referenced Paragraph 66 of Ahlborn that specifically addresses "external
heat exchanger 12" which, as per the Examiner, "would be analogous to the
outside cooling loop 9." Ans. 3. Appellants do not explain how the
Examiner's reliance on Paragraph 66 of Ahlborn is in error. Nor do
Appellants explain how the Examiner's reliance on external heat exchanger
12 would not be analogous to the situation of when cooling loop 9 is located
"outside the cleaning chamber 8" as disclosed in Paragraph 61 of Ahlborn.
Appellants further contend that "buff er tank 10 is far removed from
the cooling unit 9." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. However, the drawings
employed in Ahlborn are schematic drawings and as such, they do not depict
distances. See Ahlborn ,r,r 9-11. Further, in Fig. 3, buffer tank 10 ( also
identified as "heat exchanger 1 O" in Ahlborn ,r 66), is depicted surrounding
cleaning chamber 8 and thus, Appellants do not explain how this tank "is far
removed" as Appellants' assert.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over Ahlborn and
Wright. We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-8 and 10-16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 as being
obvious are sustained.
6
Appeal2017-008290
Application 13/700,240
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7