Ex Parte Millar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

13109693 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
13/109,693 05/17/2011 Rodney Millar 10-1137 1923
81485 7590 09/21/2017
Thnrrms;nn Hine T T P / Rneina EXAMINER
Intellectual Property Group
10050 Innovation Drive
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
Suite 400 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Dayton, Uli 4.7347-4V34 3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
ipdocket @ thompsonhine. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODNEY MILLAR and STEVE G. MACKIN1
Appeal 2016-002895
Application 13/109,693
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Action
rejecting claims 21—40. See Appeal Br. 6. Claims 1—20 are cancelled. Id. at
13 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002895
Application 13/109,693
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 21 and 35 are independent. Claim 21 is reproduced below.
21. An aircraft galley cooling system, comprising:
a central cooling line including a coolant;
a ram heat exchanger in thermal communication with
atmospheric air and for drawing heat from the central cooling
line as the coolant flows through the ram heat exchanger,
wherein an output temperature of the ram heat exchanger
defines a temperature of the coolant that flows through and
exits the ram heat exchanger;
at least one phase change cooler in thermal
communication with the central cooling line, wherein the at
least one phase change cooler is engaged to draw heat from the
central cooling line if the output temperature of the coolant is
below a preferred temperature; and
at least one galley cooling unit having a galley heat
exchanger in thermal communication with the central cooling
line, wherein the preferred temperature is based on an amount
of cooling that maintains a temperature of the at least one galley
cooling unit lower than an environment surrounding the at least
one galley cooling unit.
REJECTION
Claims 21—40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilmot, Jr. (US 2007/0252039 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2007) (“Wilmot”) and
Steves (US 3,878,692, iss. Apr. 22, 1975).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 21—40 as a group, presenting the same
arguments for independent claims 21 and 35. See Appeal Br. 6—11. We
select claim 21 as representative, with claims 22-40 standing or falling with
claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2016-002895
Application 13/109,693
The Examiner found that Wilmot discloses an aircraft galley cooling
system, as recited in claim 1, and teaches that other coolers may be used in
the system, but Wilmot lacks a ram air heat exchanger. Final Act. 3^4. The
Examiner found that Steves discloses a ram air heat exchanger in thermal
communication with atmospheric air to draw heat from cooling line 16 as
the coolant flows through the ram heat exchanger. Id. at 4. The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to provide Wilmot with a ram air heat exchanger of Steves as a low
energy cooling source. Id. The Examiner reasoned that Wilmot teaches that
other cooling devices may be added to his central cooling line so it would
have been obvious to select another known cooling device, such as the ram
air heat exchanger of Steves, to include a predictable source of low energy
cooling, as Steves teaches. Id. at 4—5 (citing Wilmot 124).
Appellants argue that Wilmot does not provide the motivation to add a
ram heat exchanger to the thermal management system but instead explains
that other cooling components may be used besides the disclosed heat pumps
and does not provide motivation to include a ram heat exchanger. Appeal
Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. As a result, Appellants argue that any motivation to
provide a ram air heat exchanger is found only in Appellants’ Specification,
and thus the rejection is the result of impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants also argue that Steve does not teach ram air cooling as a
low-cost source of air cooling. Appeal Br. 8—9. Appellants argue that Steve
instead teaches that electric motor 50 may be used as an auxiliary source of
electric power or may be used to drive fan 46 depending on the aircraft inlet
bleed pressure. Id. Appellants also argue that Steves therefore teaches that
the use of engine bleed air reduces the fuel penalty. Reply Br. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-002895
Application 13/109,693
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Wilmot’s thermal management
system 20A to include a ram heat exchanger as taught by Steves is supported
by a rational underpinning.2 First, we agree with the Examiner that Wilmot
teaches that the disclosed thermal management system 20A may be modified
to include “other types of cycles” and “different components.” Wilmot 124.
We agree with Appellants that this passage does not teach expressly that a
ram heat exchanger may be included; however, Appellant acknowledge that
this passage teaches that the system is not limited to just two heat pumps that
are disclosed in the exemplary embodiment and other unspecified, cooling
components may be used with the system. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner proposes to do just that by adding a ram heat exchanger
to Wilmot’s thermal management system based on Steves’ teachings that a
ram air heat exchanger provides advantages when used to cool cabin air in
an aircraft. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 8. Wilmot teaches a thermal management
system with an open architecture that can be modified with other cooling
units, cycles, and components, and Steves teaches the advantages of using a
ram air heat exchanger in an aircraft cooling system to reduce a fuel penalty,
i.e., to reduce costs to cool the aircraft cabin. Steves, 1:46—51; Ans. 8—9.
Appellants recognize that the reduced fuel penalty results from using
engine bleed air to drive fan 22, 46 to draw cool ram air through ram air heat
exchanger 18 to cool inlet air in both embodiments. Appeal Br. 8—9 (Fig. 2);
Reply Br. 2 (Fig. 1). Effectively, the reduced fuel penalty results from using
engine bleed air to draw cool ram air over the air inlet lines. Steves, Fig. 1.
2 Appellants do not dispute that Wilmot and Steves teach all of the claimed
features; rather, Appellants argue that the combination of these references is
based on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 6—7.
4
Appeal 2016-002895
Application 13/109,693
The Examiner reasoned correctly that adding a ram air heat exchanger
to Wilmot’s thermal management system would reduce the energy required
to operate the cooling system because the ram air exchanger uses ram air,
which already is cooled, to cool engine bleed air from 370 -F to 121 -F. See
Final Act. 4; Ans. 9; Steves, 2:30-39. The pressure of the bleed air provides
energy to run fan 22, which draws the cooling ram air through ram air heat
exchanger 18. Steves, 2:5—10, 2:43—50. Bleed air is used to operate ram air
heat exchanger 18, which, in turn, cools the inlet air before the inlet air flows
to cooling expansion turbine 26, which cools the air further before it enters
the aircraft cabin. Id. at 2:8—12. The use of bleed air to run the ram air heat
exchanger allows cool air to be delivered to the cabin “even at low engine
power operation with low air supply pressures without utilizing cooling
system components such as heat exchangers and cooling turbines of
increased dimensions.” Id. at 1:31—37 (emphasis added). Skilled artisans
would understand that the fuel penalty is reduced while cabin cooling is
achieved by using the ram air heat exchanger to cool inlet air instead of
using other active cooling system components, such as compressors and heat
exchangers that require input of additional energy to operate. See Ans. 9.
These teachings support the Examiner’s determination of obviousness
without taking Official Notice. Moreover, Wehner (US 4,869,071, iss. Sept.
26, 1989), which the Examiner cites in response to Appellants’ request to
support the alleged Official Notice, teaches that ram air can be used to cool
liquid in a coolant loop without operating a compressor if the temperature of
the ram air is sufficiently low to provide the necessary cooling. See Wehner,
1:34—38; Ans. 11. Wehner confirms the teachings of Steves that ram air heat
exchangers can obviate the need to add heat exchangers with compressors.
5
Appeal 2016-002895
Application 13/109,693
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 21—40.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 21—40.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6