Ex Parte Lifson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2017

12447728 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
12/447,728 04/29/2009 Alexander Lifson PA0000737US ;60246-480PUS 1 6322
26096 7590 09/18/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ATKISSON, JIANYING CUI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER LIFSON and MICHAEL F. TARAS
Appeal 2016-002669
Application 12/447,728
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alexander Lifson and Michael F. Taras (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2016-002669
Application 12/447,728
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a refrigerant system and method for
operating such system. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A refrigerant system comprising:
a compressor having a compressor pump unit for
compressing refrigerant to a discharge pressure and an electric
motor for driving said compressor, said compressor housed
within a housing shell;
a condenser positioned downstream of said compressor, an
expansion device positioned downstream of said condenser, and
an evaporator positioned downstream of said expansion device;
a suction valve positioned on a suction line leading from
said evaporator into said compressor housing shell;
a control for using pulse width modulation for cycling said
suction valve between an open position and a closed position,
said suction valve blocking the flow of a refrigerant through the
suction line when in the closed position; and
a bypass line for selectively bypassing refrigerant at a
point downstream of said compressor pump unit and compressed
to a discharge pressure by said compressor pump unit, and to a
location downstream of said suction valve, and leading to a
suction line leading into a housing shell and said bypass line
including a bypass valve, said bypass valve being controlled by
said control, said bypass valve being opened when said suction
valve is closed by said control.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Keller, Jr. US 5,167,491 Dec. 1, 1992
US 6,047,556 Apr. 11,2000
US 6,213,731 B1 Apr. 10,2001
US 8,276,395 B2 Oct. 2, 2012
Lifson ’556
Doepker
Lifson ’395
2
Appeal 2016-002669
Application 12/447,728
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Doepker, Keller, Jr., and Lifson ’556.
II. Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of
Lifson ’395.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Independent claims 1 and 9 require a bypass “controlled by [a]
control, said bypass valve being opened when said suction valve is closed by
said control.” Appeal Br. 2, 3, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Lifson
’556 teaches
A bypass line (50) bypassing refrigerant compressor (as shown
in Figure 1 and described in Column 2 line 66-Column 3 line 9,
the refrigerant is discharged from the compressor in line 12-1 to
bypass line 50, therefore bypassing the refrigerant compressor)
by said compressor pump unit (i.e. internal mechanical parts of
the compressor 12), to a location downstream of a suction valve
(i.e. solenoid valve 54) (see Figure 1) leading to a suction tube
(24) leading into a housing shell (shell of compressor 12) and the
bypass line (50) including a bypass valve (52), the bypass valve
being controlled by a control (i.e. microprocessor 100), said
bypass valve (52) being opened when said suction valve (54) is
closed (as described in Column 3 lines 10—15, valves 52, 54 and
56 are rapidly cycled opened/close or on/off so that the capacity
of the compressor can be controlled).
Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue that “the paragraph beginning at line 10 of column 3
[of Lifson ’556] does not specifically disclose the control required by the
claims wherein the bypass valve is controlled to be open when the suction
3
Appeal 2016-002669
Application 12/447,728
valve is controlled to be closed. Nothing within Lifson discloses this at all.”
Appeal Br. 5.
Responding to this argument the Examiner directs our attention to
Column 3 lines 2—8 of Lifson, “To lower the capacity of the
system 10, bypass line solenoid valve 52 is employed. In this
arrangement, valve 56 is closed, and gas at intermediate pressure
is bypassed from compressor 12 via port 12-1, line 18-1 and line
50 into suction line 24. The amount of bypassed gas and, as such,
the system capacity is varied by rapidly cycling valve 52.”
Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted). Although the cited portion of Lifson ’556 does
describe valve 56 being closed when bypass valve 52 is open, it does not
describe the operation of valve 54, which the rejection identifies as
corresponding to the claimed suction valve. The Examiner determines that
“it is inherently understood that valve 54 would also have to be closed in
order to complete the bypass configuration.” Id. However, it is not apparent
that this would be the case. Lor example if the pressure in the suction line
24 is greater than the pressure in line 50, the gas from line 50 would flow to
the compressor 12 without the need to close suction valve 54. Moreover, as
stated in Lison ‘556, the purpose of the bypass line is to lower the capacity
of the system, not to prevent all gas flow to the suction line from sources
other than line 50. This purpose can be accomplished without closing
suction valve 54. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding of inherency is in
error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 and 9, and claims 2—8 and 10—15 which depend from either claim 1
or claim 9.
4
Appeal 2016-002669
Application 12/447,728
Rejection II
The Examiner determines that claims 1 and 9 are not patentably
distinct from the invention set forth in claims 1 and 8 of Lifson ’395. See
Final Act. 11—12. Appellants do not contest this rejection. See generally
Appeal Br. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 and 9 on the basis of nonstatutory double patenting.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 as unpatentable over
Doepker, Keller, Jr. and Lifson ’556 is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 9 as not patentably distinct
over Lifson ’395 is AFFIRMED.
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
5