Ex Parte Nickey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2017

13025907 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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.
13/025,907 02/11/2011 Glenn Eugene NICKEY 26432-0051-Cl 3692
75576 7590
Johnson Controls, Inc.
c/o Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
06/02/2017 EXAMINER
MARTIN, ELIZABETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN EUGENE NICKEY, IAN MICHAEL CASPER,
WILLIAM L. KOPKO, MICHAEL LEE BUCKLEY, and
MUSTAFA KEMAL YANIK
Appeal 2015-005703
Application 13/025,907
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’
rejections of claims 10—29. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Johnson Controls
Technology Company.” (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2015-005703
Application 13/025,907
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention relates to “an air-cooled condenser” having
“stacked coil sections operating at different condensing temperatures and/or
pressures.” (Spec. 12.)
10. A vapor compression system comprising:
a first circuit to circulate a first refrigerant comprising a
first compressor, first condenser and first evaporator in fluid
communication;
a second circuit to circulate a second refrigerant
comprising a second compressor, second condenser and
second evaporator in fluid communication;
the first evaporator and the second evaporator being
configured and positioned to exchange heat from a single
process fluid;
at least one air moving device to circulate air through the
first condenser and then the second condenser;
the first condenser and the second condenser each
comprising a plurality of sections, each section of the first
condenser being positioned next to and substantially parallel
to a corresponding section of the second condenser;
each section of the first condenser being thermally
separate from the corresponding section of the second
condenser; and
a condensing temperature of the first refrigerant in the first
condenser is less than a condensing temperature of the
second refrigerant in the second condenser.
Illustrative Claim
References
Gauberthier
Hughes
Tipton
US 4,251,247
US 5,341,870
US 6,553,778 B2
US 7,096,681 B2
US 2006/0201188 A1
US 7,434,415 B2
US 2009/0025405 A1
Feb. 17, 1981
Aug. 30, 1994
Apr. 29, 2003
Aug. 29, 2006
Sept. 14, 2006
Oct. 14, 2008
Jan. 29, 2009
Wills
Kopko
Knight
Yanik
2
Appeal 2015-005703
Application 13/025,907
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 10-15, 23—25, 27, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, and Kopko. (Final
Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 17, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, Kopko, and Wills. (Final Action 7.)
The Examiner rejects claims 18—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, Kopko, Wills, and Gauberthier. (Final
Action 9.)
The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, Kopko, Wills, and Gauberthier. (Final
Action 12.)
The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, Kopko, and Knight. (Final Action 13.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 10 recites “a first circuit” comprising a “first
condenser,” and “a second circuit” comprising a “second condenser.”
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Tipton discloses a vapor
compression system comprising a first circuit 12, a second circuit 14, and
condenser segments 220 and 240. (See Final Action 4.) “Condenser
segment 220 has a condenser coil 222 circuited throughout,” and
“[cjondenser segment 240 has a condenser coil 242 circuited throughout.”
(Tipton, col. 5,11. 55—58.) Condenser coil 222 “provides condensing for
cooling circuit 12,” and condenser coil 242 “provides condensing for cooling
circuit 14.” {Id. col. 5,11. 56—60.)
3
Appeal 2015-005703
Application 13/025,907
Independent claim 10 also recites “[an] air moving device to circulate
air through the first condenser and then the second condenser.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that “Hughes discloses an arrangement of
coils in a stacked configuration” in which “the air would move through one
coil to the next.” (Answer 17.) The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to modify Tipton’s system “in view of the teachings of Hughes
to provide a heat exchanger that is relatively inexpensive to manufacture”
(Final Action 4) and/or “to prevent condensate from being entrained in an air
flow” (Answer 19).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner does not adequately address
why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Tipton’s system to arrive
at the claimed subject matter. (See Appeal Br. 4—6.) According to the
Appellants, “the two refrigerant circuits in Tipton require parallel air flow
and as such there would be no reason to change the configuration to have
serial air flow.” (Id. at 6.)
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ position because the Examiner’s
proposed modification to Tipton’s system, as we understand it, entails
repositioning condenser coils 222 and 242 in a stacked arrangement so that
air would move in series through one coil to the next. (See e.g., Answer 19,
especially the Examiner’s annotated drawing.) However, Tipton stresses a
condenser design in which each condenser coil “receives airflow [] at the
same temperature and velocity” so that “each coil has a constant condensing
capacity regardless of whether the other condenser coil is in operation.”
(Tipton, col. 5,11. 13—16.) To this end, individual condenser coils are
arranged “so that airstream passes through the individual condenser coils in
parallel.” (Id. at 2,11. 10-12.) With specific reference to Tipton’s condenser
4
Appeal 2015-005703
Application 13/025,907
coils 222 and 242, they “receive airflow at constant temperature to both
condenser segments 220, 240.” (Id. at col. 5,11. 61—63.)
As pointed out by the Appellants, the Examiner does not adequately
address why, despite Tipton’s teachings on parallel airflow, one of ordinary
skill in the art would nonetheless consider a modification to Tipton’s system
calling for serial (rather than parallel) airflow through condenser coils 222
and 242. The Examiner does not, for example, maintain that airflow in
series (instead of parallel) through Tipton’s condenser coils 222 and 242
would result in each coil still having a constant condensing capacity.
Additionally or alternatively, the Examiner does not maintain that Tipton’s
system would operate predictably with condenser coils having non-constant
condensing capacities.
The Examiner’s combination of the prior art teachings also entails
further modifying Tipton’s system so that its refrigerants have different
condensing temperatures in view of Kopko. (See Final Action 4.) However,
the Examiner does not maintain that, much less explain why, one of ordinary
skill would consider refrigerants having different condensing temperatures
to be an influential factor when contemplating a modification involving
serial (rather than parallel) airflow through Tipton’s condenser coils 222
and 242. (See id.; see also Answer 16—17.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, and
Kopko.
The rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 11—29) depend directly
or indirectly from independent claim 10 (see Appeal Br., Claims App.); and
the Examiner’s further findings with respect to these dependent claims (see
5
Appeal 2015-005703
Application 13/025,907
Final Action 5—14) do not compensate for the above discussed shortcomings
in the rejection of independent claim 10. Thus, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 11—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tipton, Hughes, and Kopko alone or in combination
with Wills, Gauberthier, and/or Knight.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10—29.
REVERSED
6