Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

12833080 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
12/833,080 07/09/2010 Ratnesh Kumar Sharma 82262996 5695
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
MENDOZA-WILKENFE, ERIK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RATNESH KUMAR SHARMA, THOMAS W. CHRISTIAN, and
CHANDRAKANT PATEL
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ratnesh Kumar Sharma et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—19 and 21—25.
Claim 20 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “cooling systems and methods
[of operating cooling systems].” See Spec. Title, Fig. 2a. Claims 1, 13, and
24 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A cooling system, comprising:
a water-cooled air conditioning module for cooling air
from a chamber;
a cooling module for cooling warm water generated by the
air conditioning module;
wherein the chamber is arranged for receiving air to be
cooled, and air from the cooling module; and
a control module configured to:
determine characteristics of the air to be cooled and
the air from the cooling module;
determine, based on the determined characteristics,
a flow rate of the air from the cooling module to be input
to the chamber such that the air input to the air
conditioning module has a relative humidity level within a
predetermined range; and
control the flow rate of the air from the cooling
module to the chamber in accordance with the determined
flow rate.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1,3,4, 10—14, 16, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kreft (US 2011/0168793 Al; pub. July 14,
2011) and Scott (US 2,118,949; iss. May 31, 1938).
II. Claims 2, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kreft, Scott, and Matsui (US 2009/0165484 Al; pub. July
2, 2009).
2
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
III. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kreft, Scott, and Curtis (US 7,191,607 B2; iss. Mar. 20,
2007).
IV. Claims 7-9 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kreft, Scott, and Ito (US 8,036, 779 B2; iss. Oct. 11,
2011).
V. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kreft, Scott, and Wruck (US 2006/0150644 Al; pub. July 13, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Kreft and Scott
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10—14, 16, and 21—23
The Examiner finds that Kreft discloses the cooling system of claim 1
substantially as claimed except, inter alia, “a cooling module for cooling
warm water generated by the air conditioning module.” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds that “Scott teaches of a water cooled air conditioning module
(Fig. 1, 12), a cooling module (Fig. 1, 6) for cooling warm water generated
by the air conditioning module.” Id. The Examiner further finds that “the
water-cooled air conditioning module [12 of Scott] is capable of receiving
air from the cooling module [6] by means of damper 14 and duct 15” and
that “Scott teaches wherein the system is capable of creating a mixture
(combination of air flowing through 18 and air flowing through duct 25) of
at least air to be cooled (air flowing through 18) and air from the cooling
module [6].” Id. at 3-4.
3
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
Initially, we note that the limitation requiring the cooling module “for
cooling warm water generated by the air conditioning module,” is a
functional claim limitation, not a statement of intended use. See Appeal Br.
Claims App., i; see also Final Act. 27; Appeal Br. 11.
In this case, Scott discloses that tank 6 includes “a multiplicity of
water spray nozzles 7.” Scott, col. 1:24-25, Figure. Scott discloses that
“[t]he air blowing through the water sprays [7] will evaporate water and cool
same. Said cool water will be pumped from the bottom of the tank 6 by the
pump 3, through pipe 11, through the cooling coil 12, and through the pipe
13 to the water sprays [7].” Scott, col. 1:36^41 (emphasis added), Figure;
see also Appeal Br. 8, 12; Reply Br. 11. In other words, tank (cooling
module) 6 of Scott provides cooled liquid (water) to cooling coil (air
conditioning module) 12. See e.g., Appeal Br. Claims App., v (Independent
claim 24 requires the cooling module to “cool[] warmed liquid from an air
conditioning module” and “to provide cooled liquid to the air conditioning
module.”). We disagree with the Examiner that “Scott teaches” tank
(cooling module) 6 “cool[s] warm water generated by the air conditioning
module [cooling coil 12].” See Final Act. 27 (emphasis added); see also id.
at 3; Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 10-11.
Scott further discloses that
[t]he numeral 14 indicates a damper located in a duct 15,
which damper is normally closed during the warm weather when
it is desirable to cool the living rooms of the house. The numeral
16 indicates a damper located in the duct 17, which damper is
normally open during the warm weather when it is desirable to
cool the living rooms of the house. The duct 17 leads up through
the side walls of the house taking up heat from said walls,
preferably passing over the top wall of the upper rooms of the
house into the attic and then out to the atmosphere.
4
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
Scott, col. 1:42-53 (emphasis added), Figure; see also Appeal Br. 8-10, 12-
13; Reply Br. 3-5,9, 11-12.
Scott also discloses that
[t]he numeral 21 indicates a boiler for heating purposes in
cold weather. When it is desirable to heat the rooms in the house,
the shutters 18 are closed and damper 16 is closed, damper 14 is
open, the valves 22 and 23 are open and the valve 24 is closed.
With this arrangement steam or hot water can pass to the coils 12
and the blower motor 2 would be controlled by the room
thermostat (not shown) so that when heat is desired in the rooms
to be heated, the room thermostat would cause the motor 2 to
operate the blower 1 and deliver air through the duct 25, through
the filters 19, through the coil 12 and into the rooms through the
ducts 20. Said air would be circulated by being drawn from the
rooms by the ducts 5.
Scott, col. 2:11-25 (emphasis added), Figure; see also Appeal Br. 8-10, 12-
13; Reply Br. 3-5,9, 11-12.
According to Scott, during the cooling phase, damper 14 is closed and
shutters 18 are open to draw air from outside the house. In contrast, during
the heating phase, shutters 18 are closed and damper 14 is open to allow
delivery of air through duct 25. As such, air drawn from outside the house
through shutters 18 does not mix with air flowing through duct 25 (i.e., air
leaving tank (cooling tower) 6 via duct 25 does not mix with outside air).
See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 29-30.
In the Answer, the Examiner states “Scott teaches an alternative
method, using a cooling tower to provide cooling for an inside space.” Ans.
29-30. We agree with Appellants that “[t]he Examiner has cited to no
specific passage [in Scott] to support this assertion” and “[i]t is unclear what
is meant by ‘using a cooling tower to provide cooling for an inside space.’”
5
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
Reply Br. 5. Consequently, based on the foregoing reasons, the Examiner
fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined
teachings of Kreft and Scott disclose the cooling system of claim 1.
Independent claim 13, which is directed to a method of operating a
cooling system, includes language to a cooling tower for cooling warm
water from an air conditioning module. See Appeal Br. Claims App., iii.
The Examiner relies on Scott for the same unsupported findings discussed
above. See Final Act. 8—10. Thus, the Examiner’s findings are deficient for
claim 13 as well.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 10-14, 16, and 21—23 as unpatentable over Kreft and Scott.
Obviousness over Kreft, Scott, and any of Matsui, Curtis, Ito, or Wruck
Claims 2, 5-9, 15, 17-19, 24, and 25
Claims 2, 5-9, 15, and 17-19 depend either directly or indirectly from
claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. Claims App., i—iv. Independent claim 24,
which is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium,
includes language to a cooling module that cools warm liquid from an air
conditioning module. See Appeal Br. Claims App., v. Claim 25 depends
from claim 24. Id. The Examiner relies on Scott for the same unsupported
findings discussed above for all the claims. See Final Act. 13—26. The
Examiner does not rely on Matsui, Curtis, Ito, or Wruck to remedy the
deficiencies of Scott. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed
above for claims 1 and 13, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5-9, 15, 17-19, 24, and 25.
6
Appeal 2015-002073
Application 12/833,080
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—19 and 21-
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7