Ex Parte Senf

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2018

13704314 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/704,314 12/14/2012 Ramond L. Senf JR.
87059 7590 04/20/2018
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-0012733-US-AA 2683
EXAMINER
ALVARE,PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2018 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 RAMOND L. SENF JR. 1
Appeal2017-007821
Application 13/704,314
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ramond L. Senf Jr. ("Appellant") seeks our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 7, 11,
15, and 17. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant's Appeal Brief lists Carrier Corporation as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
2 Claims 4 and 14 are canceled and claims 2, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, and 18-
20 are withdrawn from consideration. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007821
Application 13/704,314
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a refrigerant vapor compression
system evaporator defrost control. Spec. ,-r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling initiation of a defrost cycle of an
evaporator heat exchanger of a refrigerant vapor compression
system for supplying conditioned air to a temperature controlled
space, the method comprising:
establishing a return air-saturation temperature differential
equal to the difference of a sensed air temperature of an air flow
returning from the temperature controlled space to pass over the
evaporator heat exchanger minus a refrigerant saturation
temperature of a flow of refrigerant passing through the
evaporator heat exchanger;
comparing the return air-saturation temperature
differential to a set point threshold defrost temperature
differential; and
if the return air-saturation temperature differential exceeds
the set point threshold defrost temperature differential, initiating
a defrost cycle for defrosting the evaporator heat exchanger;
wherein establishing the return air-saturation temperature
differential includes:
sensing a refrigerant pressure of and generating a signal
indicative of the sensed refrigerant pressure of a flow of
refrigerant passing through the evaporator heat exchanger at a
plurality of spaced time intervals over a selected time period;
calculating a plurality of refrigerant saturation
temperatures, one per each one of the plurality of refrigerant
pressures sensed over the selected time period;
calculating an adjusted refrigerant saturation temperature
based on the plurality of refrigerant saturation temperatures; and
establishing the return air-saturation temperature
differential as the difference of the sensed air temperature minus
the adjusted refrigerant saturation temperature.
2
Appeal2017-007821
Application 13/704,314
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Bah el
Ludwig
us 5,440,890
US 2006/0248904 Al
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Aug. 15, 1995
Nov. 9, 2006
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ludwig and Bahel.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Ludwig discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 1, but relies on Bahel to teach certain features related to
obtaining data at a plurality of spaced time intervals over a selected time
period. Final Act. 5---6.
Appellant asserts that the combined teachings of Ludwig and Bahel do
not result in the claimed invention because Bahel discloses "an adjusted
temperature differential ... not an adjusted refrigerant saturation
temperature as recited in claim 1." Br. 6. According to Appellant, "Bahel
takes multiple temperature differentials, [DT ai], and then averages the
multiple temperature differentials," whereas claim 1 requires a plurality of
refrigerant saturation temperature values, "but a single differential is
determined (i.e., the difference of the sensed air temperature minus the
adjusted refrigerant saturation temperature)." Id.
In response, the Examiner states, "[t]he fact that Dtai is a temperature
differential does not preclude the teaching that a known value being
averaged in a defrost cycle would 'screen out spurious readings (col. 9 11. 31-
38 of Bahel)' and therefore be directly pertinent to the limitations at hand"
because Bahel is not being "bodily incorporated" into Ludwig. Ans. 10-11.
3
Appeal2017-007821
Application 13/704,314
Appellant's argument on this point is unavailing because we agree
with the Examiner that the argument relies on a bodily incorporation, in
Ludwig, of the plurality of temperature differential values of Bahel. This is
not what is proposed by the Examiner. Rather, the Examiner combines the
general teaching in Bahel of taking multiple temperature measurements to
find an adjusted value with the teaching in Ludwig of determining a
difference between a sensed air temperature and a calculated refrigerant
saturation temperature. See Final Act. 5-6; see also KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Additionally, Appellant
provides no persuasive technical argument or objective evidence to show
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any difficulty in
combining the teachings of Ludwig and Bahel in such a way as to produce
an adjusted temperature based on a plurality of temperature measurements,
as in Bahel, to provide a more accurate representation of system parameters
during a defrost initialization cycle. Ans. 11.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Appellant relies on
similar arguments for the patentability of independent claim 11 (Br. 7-10),
and, for the same reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of these
claims. Appellant makes no separate arguments for dependent claims 5, 7,
15, and 17. Br. 7, 10. Accordingly, these claims fall with corresponding
independent claims 1 and 11.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 17 as
unpatentable over Ludwig and Bahel.
4
Appeal2017-007821
Application 13/704,314
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
5