Ex Parte Lord et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

13121473 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
13/121,473 03/29/2011 Richard G. Lord PA-0009532-US-AA 9464
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
COX, ALEXIS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD G. LORD, GUY A. DELUCA, and
MICHAEL J. FROEHLICH
Appeal 2015-007024
Application 13/121,473
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—9, 13, 14, 16, and 17, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Carrier Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007024
Application 13/121,473
Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to controlling the supply of conditioned air to
a climate controlled space. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling operation of a system
for supplying a conditioned air flow at a setpoint
air temperature to a climate controlled space, said
method comprising:
operating said system under a first control
mode in response to a sensed space air temperature
by varying a flow volume of the conditioned air
flow and maintaining the air temperature of the
conditioned air constant at the setpoint air
temperature, the flow volume of the conditioned
air flow being increased when the sensed space air
temperature is greater than a sensed space air
temperature setpoint, the flow volume of the
conditioned air flow being decreased when the
sensed space air temperature is less than the sensed
space air temperature setpoint;
determining if the flow volume of the
conditioned air is above an upper limit or below a
lower limit; and
operating said system under a second control
mode when the flow volume of the conditioned air
flow is above an upper limit or below a lower
limit, the second control mode operating in
response to the sensed space air temperature by
varying the setpoint air temperature of the
conditioned air flow and maintaining the flow
volume of the conditioned air constant.
2
Appeal 2015-007024
Application 13/121,473
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Bash US 2006/0225446 A1 Oct. 12,2006
Stark US 2009/0166442 A1 July 2, 2009
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Stark. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stark and Bash. Id. at 5—6.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “[a] method for controlling operation of a
system for supplying a conditioned air flow at a setpoint air temperature to a
climate controlled space” that comprises “operating said system under a first
control mode in response to a sensed space air temperature by varying a flow
volume of the conditioned air flow and maintaining the air temperature of
the conditioned air constant at the setpoint air temperature.” (Emphasis
added.) Independent claim 13 similarly recites “[a]n air supply system for
controlling the supply of conditioned air to a climate controlled space” that
comprises “an air supply duct,” an “air return duct,” and a “controller,”
“wherein said controller, in a first control mode, adjusts the air flow volume
of conditioned air passed to the supply duct in response to the sensed space
air temperature in the space.” (Emphasis added.) The remaining claims on
appeal incorporate these limitations by way of dependence.
The Examiner finds that Stark discloses varying a “flow volume of
conditioned air,” as recited in claims 1 and 13. Final Act. 2—5 (mailed June
3
Appeal 2015-007024
Application 13/121,473
20, 2014). In particular, the Examiner cites steps depicted in Figure 5 of
Stark that relate to “reducing and increasing zone return air volume.” Id. at
3, 4 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue on appeal that in Stark’s system, “the volume of
supply air is fixed,” and that Stark thus “fails to disclose varying the flow
volume of supplied conditioned air” as required by claims 1 and 13. App.
Br. 4, 6. The Examiner’s Answer does not dispute Appellants’ contention
that Stark varies the volume of air in return air ducts, and that the volume of
supply ducts remains fixed. See Ans. 2. However, the Examiner determines
that the claim limitation “supplied conditioned air” in claims 1 and 13 is
broad enough to encompass “air [that is] supplied to the air conditioner via
the return air duct.” Id. at 3. Thus, the Examiner reasons, Starks’s
disclosure of varying the volume of return air satisfies the above-quoted
limitations of claims 1 and 13. See id. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in making this determination.
Claim 1 requires “varying a flow volume of the conditioned air flow.”
The preamble’s recitation of “a system for supplying a conditioned air flow
at a setpoint air temperature to a climate controlled space” provides the
requisite antecedent basis for the recitations of “the conditioned air flow” in
the body of the claim. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we determine that
the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d
945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen the limitations in the body of the claim
rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble
may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” (internal
quotation omitted)). Claim 1 thus requires that the recited “conditioned air
4
Appeal 2015-007024
Application 13/121,473
flow” be “air flow at a setpoint air temperature” that is supplied “to a climate
controlled space.”
Claim 13 recites “an air supply duct” and “air return duct,” and
requires adjusting “the air flow volume of conditioned air passed to the
supply duct.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, claim 13 is not satisfied by
adjusting the air flow volume in the return air duct.
The Examiner does not contend that Stark varies the air flow volume
of air that is supplied “to a climate controlled space,” or air that is passed
through “an air supply duct.” Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 13 is not adequately supported. For the same reason, the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—9, 14, 16, and 17, is not
adequately supported.
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1—9, 13, 14, 16, and 17.
REVERSED
5