Ex Parte Puranen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 25, 2019

14003688 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/003,688 09/06/2013 Chris Puranen
87059 7590 04/29/2019
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.
57692US02 (U300009US2) 4730
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MERAJ A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2019 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 CHRIS PURANEN and RAJENDRA K. SHAH
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 as being unpatentable over
various combinations of the prior art. Final Office Action (May 10, 2017,
"Final Act."). Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejections. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the
reasons explained below, we find that the Examiner has shown that the
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Carrier Corporation ("Appellant") as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief (October 16, 2017, "Appeal Br.") 2.
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
subject matter of only some of the claims would have been obvious in light
of the combined teachings of the prior art. Thus, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an electric re-heat
dehumidification apparatus. Specification (September 6, 2013, "Spec.") ,r 2.
The Specification describes that modem Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning (HV AC) systems operate air conditioners to control high
humidity while allowing for a limited degree of overcooling and/or reduce
indoor air flow in a controlled manner to maximize moisture removal while
limiting overcooling. Id. ,r 4. The Specification describes that in one
approach, air-conditioned air is re-heated to minimize or cancel the
overcooling effect. Id. Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to a
controller that activates a resistive element of a heater based on feedback
from the system.
Claims 1, 8, and 17 are the independent claims. Claims 1 and 8 are
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below.
1. An electric re-heat dehumidification apparatus to
dehumidify a conditioned space, comprising:
a conditioning unit to produce an output airstream
including overcooled air to be provided to the conditioned
space to overcool the conditioned space during the
dehumidifying of the conditioned space;
a resistive element disposed within an output airstream of
the conditioning unit, the resistive element comprising stages
2
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
that, when activated, heat the overcooled air of the output
airstream; and
a controller to limit the overcooling of the conditioned
space, the controller being operably coupled to the resistive
element and configured to:
concurrently activate a combination of the stages
of the resistive element in accordance with information
of the conditioning unit, the stages of the resistive
element and a temperature of the conditioned space, and
activate the stages of the resistive element in
sequence with stage repetition in accordance with
information of the conditioning unit, the stages of the
resistive element and a temperature of the conditioned
space.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
8. An electric re-heat dehumidification apparatus to
dehumidify a conditioned space, comprising:
a conditioning unit to produce an output airstream
including overcooled air to be provided to the conditioned
space to overcool the conditioned space during the
dehumidifying of the conditioned space;
a user interface by which an occupant of the conditioned
space inputs commands governing conditioning unit operation;
a resistive element disposed within an output airstream of
the conditioning unit, the resistive element comprising first,
second and third stages that, when activated, heat the
overcooled air of the output airstream; and
a controller to limit the overcooling of the conditioned
space, the controller being operably coupled to the resistive
element and configured to:
concurrently activate a combination of the first,
second and third stages of the resistive element in
accordance with the input commands, information of the
3
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
Id. at 13-14.
conditioning unit and the stages of the resistive element
and a temperature of the conditioned space, and
activate the first, second and third stages of the
resistive element in sequence with a first, second or third
stage deactivation and repeated activation in accordance
with the input commands, information of the
conditioning unit and the stages of the resistive element
and a temperature of the conditioned space.
Kruper
EVIDENCE
us 3,547,348
us 3,831,663
us 4,813,474
Dec. 15, 1970
Aug. 27, 1974
Mar. 21, 1989
Dec. 7, 2006
Pithie
Umezu
Cavanagh et al. US 2006/0273183 Al
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)2 :
1. Claims 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected as unpatentable over Cavanagh
and Pithie.
2. Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected as
unpatentable over Cavanagh, Pithie, and Umezu.
3. Claims 5, 14, and 18 are rejected as unpatentable over Cavanagh,
Pithie, Umezu, and Kruper.
2 The Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 5, 14, and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Examiner's Answer (March 21, 2018, "Ans.") 3.
4
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to show that the
combination of Cavanagh and Pithie "discloses a controller that is operably
coupled to the resistive element and configured to 'concurrently activate a
combination of the stages of the resistive element ... and ... activate the
stages of the resistive element in sequence with stage repetition ... '
( emphasis added)." Appeal Br. 9 ( quoting claim 1 ). Appellant argues that
the conjunctive language of the claims requires the simultaneous
performance of the "concurrent activation" and "sequential activation"
functions of the controller. Reply Br. 1. For instance, Appellant argues that
the language of claim 1 allows for the concurrent activation of the first and
second stages of the resistive element, and at the same time the sequential
activation of the third stage (i.e., turning on and off the third stage). Id.
Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the claim language.
Claim 1 recites a controller "configured to" perform both recited functions,
i.e., concurrent activation and sequential activation of the stages, but the
claim does not recite that the controller is configured to perform these
recited functions simultaneously.
Pithie teaches air conditioner 10 with control panel 14 provided with
thermostat control knob 15 and function selector knob 16 to control
activation of two heaters 30 and 31 (i.e., stages of the resistive element).
Pithie 2:5-10, Fig. 1. Function selector knob 16 controls selector switch 35,
which includes four switch arms each connectible to a corresponding one of
four contacts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Id. at 2:38-40, Fig. 3. Contact 2 is connected to
heater 31, and contact 3 is connected to heater 30. Id. at 2:53-56, Fig. 3.
5
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
Thermostat control knob 15 controls thermostatic switch 36, which includes
two switch arms connected to three contacts 6, 7, and 8. Id. at 2:42-47,
Fig. 3. As shown in Figure 3, in the "HEAT" mode of operation, contacts 2
and 3 are closed to concurrently activate heaters 31 and 30, respectively. As
also shown in Figure 3, in the "DEHUMID." mode of operation, contact 2 is
closed and contact 3 is open to activate heater 31 and de-energize heater 30.
Id. at Fig. 3. During "DEHUMID." mode, a fan and compressor are
energized to progressively lower the room temperature, but heater 31 is not
energized until the room temperature drops below a predetermined
temperature, at which point heater 31 is activated to effect simultaneous
cooling and reheating. Id. at 2:60-3:20. If, during the "DEHUMID." mode,
the room temperature rises above a predetermined temperature, heater 31
will again be de-energized. Id. at 3:47-4:2. Accordingly, in addition to
having a "HEAT" mode where heaters 30 and 31 are activated in
combination, Pithie teaches a "DEHUMID." mode that activates the heaters
30 and 31 in sequence with stage repetition in accordance with information
of the conditioning unit (i.e., "HEAT" mode or "DEHUMID." mode) and in
accordance with a temperature of the conditioned space.
Thus, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
of dependent claims 2 and 3, which Appellant does not argue separately
from claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant also relies on the
arguments presented in support of the patentability of claim 1 as the basis for
seeking reversal of the additional grounds of rejections of dependent
claims 4-7. Appeal Br. 8-9. For the reasons discussed above, we likewise
sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 4-7.
6
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
Independent Claims 8 and 17
Independent claim 8 recites that the resistive element comprises first,
second, and third stages, and the controller is configured to "concurrently
activate a combination of the first, second and third stages of the resistive
element" and "activate the first, second and third stages of the resistive
element in sequence." Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). Independent
claim 1 7 recites a method of performing electric re-heat dehumidification
that comprises "activating a low resistive element stage while maintaining
intermediate and high resistive element stages in an off condition,"
"deactivating the low resistive element stage and activating the intermediate
resistive element stage while maintaining the high resistive element stage in
the off condition," and "concurrently re-activating the low resistive element
stage while maintaining the intermediate resistive element stage in an on
condition and the high resistive element stage in on the off condition." 3 Id.
at 15-16.
Appellant argues that because "Pithie at best discloses two heater
elements in heating element 30 and heating element 31, Pithie clearly lacks
first, second and third heating stages or low, intermediate and high resistive
element stages." Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2 (Appellant arguing that
the result of the combination is the replacement of Cavanagh' s single heater
with Pithie' s two heaters, and not the addition of Pithie' s two heaters to
Cavanagh's single heater).
The Examiner equates a "first stage" with the condition of a heating
element being "on" and a "second stage" with the condition of the heating
3 Claim 17 appears to contain a typographical error in the "concurrently re-
activating" step.
7
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
element being "off." Ans. 4 (discussing "on" and "off' stages of
Cavanagh's heater 51). The Examiner finds that Pithie teaches two heaters
30, 31 with operation of the heaters individually or together. Ans. 5 ( citing
Pithie, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that the combination of Cavanagh and
Pithie teaches three distinct heating stages.
As described above, Pithie discloses only two stages. In the
"DEHUMID." mode of operation, heater 31 is activated while heater 30 is
de-energized. Pithie, Fig. 3. In the "HEAT" mode, both heater 30 and
heater 31 are activated. Id. For example, Pithie does not disclose
independently activating heater 30 while heater 31 is de-energized. Id.
(showing contact 3 closed only when contact 2 also is closed). Pithie lacks
disclosure of a controller configured to activate first, second, and third stages
of the resistive element in sequence, as recited in claim 8, and lacks
disclosure of a method that includes deactivating the low resistive element
stage and activating the intermediate resistive element stage, as recited in
claim 17. Further, the Examiner has failed to adequately articulate why one
having ordinary skill in the art, applying the teachings of Pithie to the system
of Cavanagh, would have been led to the claimed sequential activation of
three distinct heating stages, as called for in claims 8 and 1 7. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 8 and 17 and their dependent claims 9-15
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We sustain the rejections of claims 1-7. We do not sustain the
rejections of claims 8-20.
8
Appeal2018-006054
Application 14/003,688
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
9