Ex Parte Sollie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2018

12741249 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018)

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.
12/741,249 07/21/2010 Bjorn Sollie 0076580-000016 5379
21839 7590 03/08/2018
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2018 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BJORN SOLLIE, MATS STROMBLAD,
and CLAES STENHEDE
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bjorn Sollie et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to a liquid separator to be used with a
refrigeration evaporator system. Spec. 1,11. 4-5.
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
Claims 1, 12, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A liquid separator for a plate heat exchanger evaporator
system for separation of liquid droplets from vapour transported
from the evaporator to the separator, wherein the separator is
designed as a U-shaped separator pipe comprising two parallel
pipes interconnected by a pipe portion, said pipes being arranged
horizontally, each of said parallel pipes extending from the pipe
portion and terminating at a respective free end, the two pipes
including a first pipe possessing an end remote from the pipe
portion and a second pipe possessing an end remote from the pipe
portion, the end of the first pipe being connected to the
evaporator to introduce into the separator the liquid droplets and
vapour from the evaporator, the vapour separated from the liquid
droplets and the liquid droplets separated from the vapour
leaving the separator at the end of the second pipe.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Philipp (US 2,544,937, issued Mar. 13, 1951) in view of
Zearfoss (US 3,955,374, issued May 11, 1976) and Esparza (US 7,540,902
B2, issued June 2, 2009);
(ii) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and Simpson (US 4,414,112, issued
Nov. 8, 1983);
(iii) Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and Payne (US 5,288,312, issued Feb.
22, 1994);
2
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
(iv) Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and Ogawa (US 4,843,837, issued July
4, 1989);
(y) Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and Saito (US 6,799,435 B2, issued
Oct. 5, 2004);
(vi) Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and Barratt (US 6,880,360 B2, issued
Apr. 19, 2005);
(vii) Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and Ishihara (US 6,189,322 Bl, issued
Feb. 20, 2001);
(viii) Claims 12, 13, 15, 17-19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, and
Yoshioka (US 5,832,736, issued Nov. 10, 1998);1
(ix) Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, Yoshioka, and Simpson;2 3and
1 The rejections of claims 13, 15, 17, and 18 refer to the rejections of claims
2, 4, 6, and 7, respectively. Final Act. 13. Because claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 are
rejected over the same references as is claim 1, from which those claims
depend, the rejection of claims 13, 15, 17, and 18 is seen as being made over
the same references as is claim 12. See id. at 10-12.
2 The rejection of claim 14 refers to the rejection of claim 3. Final Act. 13.
The rejection of claim 3 relies on the Simpson reference {id. at 6-7), thus we
understand claim 14 to be rejected as being unpatentable over Philipp in
view of Zearfoss, Esparza, Yoshioka, and Simpson.
3
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
(x) Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp in view of Zearfoss, Esparza, Yoshioka, and Payne.3 4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 21—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza
The Examiner finds that Philipp discloses a liquid separator
(accumulator 28) for a plate heat exchanger evaporator system for separation
of liquid droplets from vapour transported from an evaporator 20 to the
separator, wherein the separator is designed as a U-shaped separator pipe
comprising two pipes interconnected by a pipe portion. Final Act. 2 (citing
Philipp, Fig. 2, col. 2,11. 24-29). The Examiner relies on Zearfoss as
teaching a separator (control apparatus 119) that is designed as a U-shaped
separator pipe comprising two parallel pipes 126,127 interconnected by pipe
portions 125,128, in which vapour is separated from liquid droplets, and the
liquid droplets that are separated from the vapour leave the separator at the
end of the second pipe via outlet 131. Id. at 3 (citing Zearfoss, Fig. 4, col. 5,
11. 20-34). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the separator of Philipp so as to have two parallel pipes, in which
liquid leaves the separator at the end of a second pipe, as taught by Zearfoss,
in order to advantageously restore the evaporator to its non-starved operating
condition. Id. The Examiner further relies on Esparza as teaching a
separator that is designed as a U-shaped separator pipe having two parallel
3 The rejection of claim 16 refers to the rejection of claim 5. Final Act. 13.
The rejection of claim 5 relies on the Payne reference {id. at 7), thus we
understand claim 16 to be rejected as being unpatentable over Philipp in
view of Zearfoss, Esparza, Yoshioka, and Payne.
4
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
and horizontally arranged pipes interconnected by a pipe portion. Id. (citing
Esparza, Fig. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to further modify the separator of Philipp, as modified by Zearfoss, such that
the two parallel pipes are arranged horizontally, in order to advantageously
achieve efficient separation. Id. at 3-4.
Appellants contend that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
viewed the construction of control apparatus 119, relied on by the Examiner
as corresponding to a U-shaped separator, as disclosing or suggesting any
particular modification to accumulator 28 in Phillips. Br. 8-11. Appellants
point out that control apparatus 119 is actually in the form of an endless
loop, and that it must be vertically oriented in order to operate as intended.
Id. at 10-11. Appellants additionally note that the description in Zearfoss
does not discuss the particular configuration and arrangement of the legs,
and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not ascribe any particular
significance to the fact that the legs are illustrated as being parallel to one
another. Id. at 10.
The Examiner responds that the control apparatus of Zearfoss need
not be an endless loop nor vertically oriented because Zearfoss discloses
other embodiments. Ans. 8 (citing Zearfoss, col. 5,11. 56-59, col. 8,11. 1-6).
Taking first the Examiner’s response, we note that the proposed
modification is in view of the Figure 4 embodiment, and not other
embodiments disclosed in Zearfoss. The other embodiments relied on by the
Examiner are those in Figure 6, which shows a vertically oriented control
device 219 without parallel pipes at all, and in Figure 9, which shows an
inclined control means 419, and not one that is horizontally oriented.
Zearfoss, Figs. 6, 9, col. 5,11. 56-59, col. 8,11. 1-6. The Examiner also does
5
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
not explain how the different embodiments would be understood to be
related in a manner such that orientation of a particular embodiment is of no
consequence, or that the Figure 4 embodiment need not be in a vertical
orientation.
As to the embodiment in Figure 4 relied on by the Examiner, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would attribute any particular significance to the
parallel relationship of the left and right conduits. Further, with respect to
Appellants’ position that the construction of the Zearfoss control apparatus
would not have any particular applicability to the Philipp separator, we note
that the Examiner’s articulated reason to modify Philipp in view of Zearfoss
is simply extracted from Zearfoss, and the applicability to Philipp is not
made clear. Zearfoss uses its control apparatus to effect flow of liquid
refrigerant to its evaporator, in response to a detected increase in superheat
which is indicative of a starved evaporator, so as to restore the evaporator to
its non-starved operating condition. Zearfoss, Abstract. As the Examiner
acknowledges, Philipp does not disclose that vapour and liquid droplets are
moved out of the accumulator 28 at its outlet end 50. Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, Philipp does not appear to be concerned with restoring a
starved evaporator to a non-starved operating condition. The Examiner also
does not explain sufficiently how orienting the accumulator tubes in Philipp
in a parallel orientation, which is the proposed modification, would cause
Phillip to operate in the same manner as the Zearfoss control apparatus, even
if it were seen as being desirable to avoid a starved evaporator condition in
Phillip. As such, the Examiner’s proffered reason to modify the separator of
6
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
Philipp in view of the teachings of Zearfoss is lacking in rational
underpinnings.
The Examiner does not rely on Esparza in any manner that remedies
the above-noted deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 depending therefrom, is not sustained.
Independent claim 21 includes limitations similar to those discussed above
with respect to claim 1, and the Examiner applies the same inadequate
reasoning. Thus, the rejection of claim 21 is also not sustained.
Claim 3—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Simpson
Claim 5—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Payne
Claim 8—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Ogawa
Claim 9—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Saito
Claim 10— Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Barratt
Claim 11—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Ishihar a
The Examiner does not rely on Simpson, Payne, Ogawa, Saito,
Barratt, or Ishihara in any manner that would remedy the above-noted
deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, from which claims 3,5, and 8-11
depend, over Philipp, Zearfoss, and Esparza. Final Act. 6-9. For the same
reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 3, 5, and 8-11.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 17—19, 20, and 22—Obviousness—
Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Yoshioka
Similar to claim 1, claim 12 recites, in part, “the separator being a U-
shaped separator pipe comprising two parallel pipes interconnected by a pipe
portion, said pipes being arranged horizontally,” and “while the vapour
7
Appeal 2017-005541
Application 12/741,249
which has been separated from the liquid droplets leaves at the opposite end
of the U-shaped separator pipe.” Br., Claims App’x 2 (Claim 12). In
contrast to claim 1, claim 12 recites “[a] liquid separator together with an
evaporator in a plate heat exchanger evaporator system.” Br., Claims App’x
2 (emphasis added) (Claim 12).
For claim 12, the Examiner combines the teachings of Philipps,
Zearfoss, and Esparza in a similar manner as for claim 1. Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner relies on Yoshioka as teaching a liquid separator together
with an evaporator in a plate heat exchanger evaporator system. Id. at 11.
Accordingly, the Examiner applies the same inadequate reasoning and does
not rely on Yoshioka in any manner that remedies that deficiency. Thus, the
rejection of claim 12, and claims 13, 15, 17-19, 20, and 22 depending
therefrom, is not sustained for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14—Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Yoshioka/Simpson
Claim 16— Obviousness—Philipp/Zearfoss/Esparza/Yoshioka/Payne
The Examiner does not rely on Simpson or Payne in any manner that
would remedy the above-noted deficiency in the rejection of claim 12, from
which claims 14 and 16 depend, over Philipp, Zearfoss, Esparza, and
Yoshioka. Final Act. 13. For the same reasons discussed supra, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 14 and 16.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-22 are reversed.
REVERSED
8