Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

13389576 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/389,576 03/05/2012 ZiduMa
87059 7590 06/26/2018
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.
PA-0011674-US-AA 9767
EXAMINER
ARANT, HARRY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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 ZIDU MA, YIRONG JIANG, and DONG LUO
Appeal2017-010200
Application 13/389,576 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 14--20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Carrier
Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010200
Application 13/389,576
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An air temperature and humidity control device comprising:
a heat pump comprising a condenser fluidly coupled to a
compressor that is fluidly coupled to an evaporator, the
evaporator fluidly coupled to the condenser;
a humidity controller comprising a first contactor fluidly
coupled between the condenser and the evaporator, the
evaporator being a refrigerant-desiccant heat exchanger, the first
contactor directly connected to the evaporator, the first contactor
comprising a first at least one contact module including a porous
sidewall defining an internal space for carrying a liquid desiccant
therein and from the condenser to the evaporator, the porous
sidewall being permeable to water vapor but impermeable to the
liquid desiccant;
a second contactor fluidly coupled between the evaporator
and the condenser, the second contactor comprising a second at
least one contact module including a porous sidewall defining an
internal space for carrying a liquid desiccant therein, the
condenser, the compressor, and the evaporator providing a first
communication circuit, the condenser, the first contactor, the
evaporator, and the second contactor providing a second
communication circuit that is not in fluid communication with
the first communication circuit;
a blower for generating an airflow in communication with
the sidewall of the first at least one contact module; and
a bypass loop comprising a first joint positioned
downstream of the first contactor and upstream of the evaporator,
a second joint positioned downstream of the second contactor
and upstream of the condenser, and a bypass conduit connecting
the first and second joints, the bypass loop configured to
simultaneously direct a first portion of the liquid desiccant from
an outlet of the first contactor to an inlet of the condenser and a
second portion of the liquid desiccant from the outlet of the first
contactor to an inlet of the evaporator.
2
Appeal2017-010200
Application 13/389,576
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, and 14 stand rejected under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iguchi et al. (JP 09-222244,
published Aug. 26, 1997) ("Iguchi"), Yonemoto (JP 11-44439, published
Feb. 16, 1999), and Peterson et al. (US 4,984,434, issued Jan. 15, 1991)
("Peterson").
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iguchi, Y onemoto, Peterson, and Korin (US
2002/0078696 Al, published June 27, 2002).
III. Claim 6 stands rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iguchi, Y onemoto, Peterson, Korin, and Smolko et al. (US
2006/0248910 Al, pub. Nov. 9, 2006) ("Smolko").
IV. Claims 15-17 and 20 stand rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Iguchi and Peterson.
V. Claim 18 stands rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iguchi, Peterson, and Korin.
VI. Claim 19 stands rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iguchi, Peterson, Korin, and Smolko.
ANALYSIS
Rejections 1-111
The Examiner concludes that Iguchi's humidity control air conditioner
as modified by Peterson's teachings results in "the bypass loop configured to
simultaneously direct a first portion of the liquid desiccant from an outlet of
the first contactor to an inlet of the condenser and a second portion of the
liquid desiccant from the outlet of the first contact or to an inlet of the
3
Appeal2017-010200
Application 13/389,576
evaporator," as recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 5; Br. 12 (Claim
App.) (emphasis added).
First, the Appellants argue this modification results in Iguchi' s valves
9a and 9b both being at least partially open at the same time to direct
desiccant to both condenser and evaporator simultaneously. Br. 6. The
Examiner does not disagree with the Appellants' understanding of the
modification, i.e., resulting structure, or offer an alternative resulting
scenano.
Second, the Appellants argue that such a modification would create a
scenario where Iguchi's humidity control air conditioner would work
simultaneously in two modes: a dehumidification mode and a non-
dehumidification mode. See id. at 8-9. Once again, the Examiner does not
disagree or offer an alternative resulting scenario.
Rather, the Examiner, more particularly, finds that Peterson teaches
"providing valves (28, 30, 36, 44) which can be adjusted to regulate the
amount of liquid desiccant flowing through the first contactor/ condenser ( 14,
44) and second contactor/evaporator (12, 18, see col 4, lines 43-17 and lines
64-69)" and "that this logic could be applied to the valves (9a, 9b) of Iguchi
in order to adjust the desiccant flow, rather than just having a
dehumidification mode and a non-dehumidification mode." Ans. 15-16.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner's findings fail to include a
logical basis. Br. 8-9. The Appellants assert that "[ t ]here is no mode in
Iguchi where both valves 9a and 9b are open," and "[r]egardless of what
Peterson discloses, there is no basis to modify Iguchi to open both valves 9a
and 9b, other than Applicants' own disclosure." Id. at 9. The Appellants'
argument is persuasive.
4
Appeal2017-010200
Application 13/389,576
We agree with the Appellants that Iguchi does not disclose having
both valves 9a and 9b open, simultaneously. As such, Iguchi does not
disclose operating the humidity control air conditioner with both a
dehumidification mode and a non-dehumidification mode (i.e., two modes),
simultaneously. To the extent the Examiner determines that the
modification varies the amount of dehumidification to advantageously allow
for more precise adjustments in controlling the climate (see Ans. 16), the
Examiner fails to explain why this control would result in more precise
adjustments in the control of different climates. As such, we determine that
the Examiner's rejection fails to include adequate reasoning with some
rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds ... [require] some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.") (citations omitted) (cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-
12, and 14 under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iguchi,
Y onemoto, and Peterson.
The remaining rejections based on Iguchi, Yonemoto, and Peterson in
combination with Korin or Korin and Smolko rely on the same findings as
discussed above. See Final Act. 8-9. Each of the remaining rejections is not
cured by additional findings and/ or reasoning associated therewith. As such,
we do not sustain the rejections under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim
5 as unpatentable over Iguchi, Y onemoto, Peterson, and Korin; and claim 6
as unpatentable over Iguchi, Yonemoto, Peterson, Korin, and Smolko.
5
Appeal2017-010200
Application 13/389,576
Rejections IV-VI
Independent claim 15 includes a similar limitation as independent
claim 1. See Br. 12, 14 (Claim App.). The Examiner's findings and
conclusion concerning the rejection of claim 15 are similar to the
Examiner's findings and conclusion concerning the rejection of claim 1
discussed above. For reasons similar to those discussed above, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-17 and 20 under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iguchi and Peterson.
The remaining rejections based on Iguchi and Peterson in combination
with Korin or Korin and Smolko rely on the same findings as discussed
above. See Final Act. 13-14. Each of the remaining rejections is not cured
by additional findings and/ or reasoning associated therewith. As such, we
do not sustain the rejections under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 18
as unpatentable over Iguchi, Peterson, and Korin; and claim 19 as
unpatentable over Iguchi, Peterson, Korin, and Smolko.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12,
and 14--20.
REVERSED
6