Ex Parte Soenmez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

12992745 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
12/992,745 11/15/2010 Kenan Soenmez WUE-152A-116 9763
26875 7590 04/25/2017
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
TANENBAUM, TZVI SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2017 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENAN SOENMEZ, MARKUS KERBER, and
VOLKER BRAKHAN
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 13, 14, 16—19, and 22—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a chilled aircraft passenger service device.
Sole independent claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
13. An aircraft passenger service device
for receiving goods for cold storage that are to be
supplied to aircraft passengers, the passenger
service device comprising:
a receiving device which includes a viewing
apparatus, a coolant inlet for feeding a coolant into
the receiving device, and a coolant outlet for
discharging the coolant from the receiving device,
wherein the viewing apparatus is designed to
enable a user to inspect goods stored in the
receiving device before they are removed from the
receiving device, and
a cooling arrangement which includes:
a coolant circuit line connected to the coolant
inlet and the coolant outlet of the receiving device,
the coolant circuit line circulating the coolant to
and from the receiving device,
a device that directs into the coolant circuit line
a refrigerant fluid flowing through a refrigerant
fluid circuit line of a central cooling system of the
aircraft, thereby mixing the refrigerant fluid and
the coolant, and
a control device that controls at least one of the
temperature and the temperature distribution
within the receiving device,
2
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
wherein the control device includes a bypass
line positioned to feed heated-up coolant
discharged from the receiving device via the
coolant outlet of the receiving device, into the
coolant circuit line at a rejoining location
downstream of the device that directs into the
coolant circuit line the refrigerant fluid flowing
through the refrigerant fluid circuit line and
upstream of the coolant inlet of the receiving
device.
Kull et al.
(hereinafter “Kull”)
Buck
Moran et al.
(hereinafter “Moran”)
Sato et al.
(hereinafter “Sato”)
Scherer et al.
(hereinafter “Scherer”)
REFERENCES
US 5,491,979
US 6,845,627 B1
US 7,444,830 B2
US 2006/0196634 Al
US 2008/0134703 Al
Feb. 20, 1996
Jan. 25, 2005
Nov. 4, 2008
Sept. 7, 2006
June 12, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Scherer, Moran, and Sato. Final Act. 7.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Scherer, Moran, Sato, and Buck. Id. at 16.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Scherer, Moran, Sato, and Kull. Id. at 17.
ANALYSIS
Claims 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22—24—Obviousness—Scherer, Moran, and Sato
The Examiner finds that, as regarding sole independent claim 13,
Scherer teaches the claimed “aircraft passenger service device 16 for
3
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
receiving goods for cold storage that are to be supplied to aircraft
passengers,” including the claimed “receiving device 44” with a coolant
inlet and coolant outlet, a “cooling arrangement” that includes “a coolant
circuit line 42, 50” connected to the receiving device’s coolant inlet and the
coolant outlet, and a “control device” that includes “bypass line 28.” Final
Act. 7—8 (citing Scherer 125; reference numbers refer to Scherer’s sole
Figure).
The Examiner acknowledges that Scherer does not teach, inter alia,
(1) “a device that directs into the coolant circuit line 42, 50 a refrigerant
fluid flowing through a refrigerant fluid circuit line 22 of a central cooling
system 18 of the aircraft, thereby mixing the refrigerant fluid and the
coolant” {id. at 10); and (2) a bypass line that is “positioned to feed heated-
up coolant discharged from the receiving device 44 via the coolant outlet of
the receiving device 44, into the coolant circuit line 42, 50 at a rejoining
location downstream of the device that directs [refrigerant into the coolant
circuit line] and upstream of the coolant inlet of the receiving device.'1'’ Final
Act. 10—11. For these limitations, the Examiner relies on Sato. Id.
The Examiner contends that Sato’s valve 8, “which is configured to
switch a coolant route between heat exchanger route and a bypass route,”
allows a user “to direct the route of a fluid or to inhibit the flow of a fluid.”
Id. at 10. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would “modify Scherer by Sato such that Scherer includes a device [valve]
8” with the motivation being to allow “a user to direct or inhibit the flow of
refrigerant flowing though circuit line 22 into coolant circuit line 42, 50.”
Id. at 10. According to the Examiner, claim 13 “is merely a combination of
old elements, and in the combination each element would merely have
4
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were
predictable.” Id.
For the limitation specifying the positioning of the bypass line, the
Examiner asserts that “Sato teaches that heated coolant (i.e. coolant exiting
unit 2) may be directed to bypass (via bypass pipe 7) a cooling system (i.e.
heat exchanger 4) and return to the heat-emitting unit (i.e. vehicle unit 2) to
prevent the cooling system from being damaged due to thermal shock [].”
Final Act. 11 (citing Sato 34, 36, 50). The Examiner contends that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify
Scherer by Sato” such that Scherer’s bypass line 28 is repositioned to feed
heated-up coolant discharged from receiving device 44 into coolant circuit
line 42, 50 at a “rejoining location” downstream of valve 8 and upstream of
the coolant inlet of the receiving device 44, for the purpose of “preventing
thermal shock in any of the components of the cooling system 18, and also
controlling the temperature and flow ... of coolant into receiving device
44.” Final Act. 13. The Examiner further contends, “rearranging the bypass
line 28 of Scherer in view of Sato involves only routine skill in the art.” Id.
Appellants dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to modify Scherer in view of Sato, as the Examiner
contends. According to Appellants, none of the Examiner’s reasons for such
modification “explain why one of ordinary skill would modify the already
existing bypass line 28 ... in the circuit of Scherer . . . with the teachings of
Sato.” App. Br. 7. Appellants assert, “there is no record evidence that
thermal shock is even a realistic problem for cooling chambers which
contain food and drinks.” Id. at 8. As for controlling the coolant’s
5
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
temperature and flow rate, Appellants contend that Scherer “already
provides at least five options for such control,” and that there is no record
evidence that any of these options “is deficient in any respect.” Id. at 9
(.referencing Scherer || 27—29). The Examiner responds that “[t]he
combination of Scherer and Sato would have resulted in an advantageous or
beneficial result of further controlling the temperature and flow amount of
coolant into the receiving device of Scherer” without explaining why the
current multitude of controls are deficient such that even more control might
be warranted. Ans. 14.
We are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have repositioned Scherer’s line 28 based on Sato’s teachings, as the
Examiner asserts. Furthermore, regarding the Examiner’s thermal-shock
rationale, the Examiner misreads Sato. Sato does not teach that bypass pipe
7 is used to prevent thermal shock to heat exchanger 4. Instead, thermal
shock is avoided by limiting the speed at which three-way valve 8 is opened
to permit coolant to flow to heat exchanger 4; i.e., if the difference between
the temperature of the coolant discharging from vehicle unit 2 and the
temperature of the coolant at the heat exchanger is larger than a particular set
point, the three-way valve opens to permit coolant to flow through the
radiator at a slower rate that it would otherwise. Sato Tflf 45—47, Fig. 2.
Conversely, coolant flows through Sato’s bypass pipe 7 only when the
coolant outlet temperature is too low to require cooling from the heat
exchanger. Id. 142.
As for controlling the coolant temperature and flowrate, Scherer’s
system already is designed to do that, as Appellants point out. See App. Br.
9. The Examiner has not provided evidence or persuasive reasoning that a
6
Appeal 2015-001436
Application 12/992,745
skilled artisan would have recognized any potential benefit in repositioning
bypass line 28 for this purpose. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
1064, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Stating that it does not “suffice for obviousness
that a variation of the prior art would predictably work, but requires
consideration of whether, in light of factors such as design incentives and
other market forces, the hypothetical skilled artisan would recognize the
potential benefits and pursue the variation.”) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
13, as well as dependent claims 14, 16, 19, and 22—24, as unpatentable over
Scherer, Moran, and Sato.
Obviousness over Scherer, Moran, Sato, and either of Buck or Kull
Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 13. App. Br. 20 (Claims Appx.).
Neither Buck nor Kull is relied upon to cure the defects noted above with
respect to the combined teachings of Scherer and Sato. See Final Act. 16—
18. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, lb-
19, and 22—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
7