Ex Parte Stone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13387180 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/387,180 01/26/2012 Dennis M. Stone PA-0011609-US-AA 4036
87059 7590 10/03/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
FEBLES, ANTONIO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENNIS M. STONE, HAROLD HILL,
LESTER G. HARRINGTON, YU H. CHEN,
KENNETH CRESWELL, and DAVID F. CROCKFORD
Appeal 2016-004205
Application 13/3 87,1801
Technology Center 3700
Before LISA M. GUIJT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Carrier Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004205
Application 13/387,180
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
5, 7, 10, and 11. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
5. A refrigerated container comprising:
a box-like structure having a floor, a pair of opposed side
walls, a rear wall, and a roof panel defining an interior volume
having an open forward end;
a refrigeration unit disposed in the forward end of said
box-like structure, the refrigeration unit disposed entirely within
the interior volume of said box-like structure;
a common structural member providing structural support
for rack loading to both the box-like structure and the
refrigeration unit, the common structural member including a
bulkhead frame surrounding all four sides of the open forward
end of said box-like structure and defining the open forward end
of the box-like structure; and
a weld connecting said refrigeration unit to the common
structural member.
THE REJECTION
Claims 5,7, 10 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (US 2009/0113914 Al; published
May 7, 2009) in view of Austin Jr. (US 6,109,052; issued Aug. 29, 2000)
and lkemiya et al. (JP H10-132452; published May 22, 1998).
2
Appeal 2016-004205
Application 13/387,180
ANALYSIS
Central to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and Appellants’
arguments on Appeal is Figure 4 of Kitano, reproduced below with an
annotation provided by the Examiner.
FIG. 4
Kitano’s Figure 4 depicts a refrigeration unit 30 mounted to the frame 21 of
a trailer 20. The Examiner finds the element between the refrigeration unit
30 and the trailer frame 21, labeled as element A in the copy of Figure 4
above, teaches or at least suggests the claimed common structural member
including a bulkhead frame, as required by claim 5. Final Act. 2—3 (citing
Kitano Figs. 3—5, 8, 9, 89, 109).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Kitano teaches or
suggests the limitation “common structural member including a bulkhead
frame surrounding all four sides of the open forward end of said box-like
structure and defining the open forward end of said box-like structure,” as
recited in claim 5. Br. 3. Citing the Specification, Appellants contend the
claimed common structural member eliminates the need to bolt a support
frame of a refrigeration unit to a structural member of a container, allowing
3
Appeal 2016-004205
Application 13/387,180
the refrigeration unit to be larger. Br. 3 (citing Spec. Tflf 24, 26). Appellants
argue the only structural members disclosed in Kitano are the frame of a
refrigeration unit and the body of a trailer into which the refrigeration unit
mounts, and Appellants argue the frame and trailer are two separate
elements, not a “common structural member” as claimed. Br. 5. Further,
Appellants argue Kitano does not even describe element A as a structural
element and provides no indication that it is a bulkhead frame. Br. 4.
The Examiner responds that the plain and ordinary meaning of the
claim terms “frame” and “bulkhead” include, respectively, “a rigid structure
that surrounds or encloses something such as a door or window” and “an
upright partition separating compartments.” Ans. 3. Further, according to
the Examiner, Kitano discloses a bulkhead frame to the same extent as
Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 4.
Having considered the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants and
agree with the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, nothing in the
Specification defines or otherwise limits the claimed common structural
element including a bulkhead frame. Appellants’ Figures 3 and 4 are
reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2016-004205
Application 13/387,180
Figure 3 is “an exploded elevation view” of the invention, and Figure 4 is
“an elevation view of the refrigeration unit shown in FIG. 3 installed into the
container.” Spec. 14, 15. Referring to Figures 3 and 4, Appellants’
Specification states “the front wall bulkhead frame 40 of the structure of the
box-like container 10 serves as the common wall for providing rack loading
support to the refrigeration unit 20.” Spec. 125. The Specification also
states that “the refrigeration unit 20 is integrated into the structure of the
container 10 by sharing a common structural member that provides support
for rack loading for not only the box-like structure, but also the refrigeration
unit” and, “[ujnlike prior art bolted assemblies, neither the refrigeration unit
20 nor the bulkhead frame 40 of the container 10 has a perimeter bolting
flange.” Spec. Tflf 24—25. We discern nothing in these descriptions or in the
Specification that defines the claim terms or otherwise distinguishes Kitano.
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the plain and
ordinary meaning of the claim terms, and we agree with the Examiner that
element A of the annotated Figure 4 falls within the scope of the claim.
Although Kitano does not specifically describe that element as structural,
Kitano describes that the frame of the refrigeration unit is configured to be
connected to structural members of the trailer body (Kitano 1 82), and
Appellants do not persuasively argue that claim 5 requires more or otherwise
distinguishes Kitano.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Appellants argues the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 7 for the
reasons addressed with respect to claim 5 (Br. 5—6), and Appellants do not
separately address claims 10 and 11. Accordingly, we sustain the
5
Appeal 2016-004205
Application 13/387,180
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, and 11 for the same reasons as those
discussed above.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5,
7, 10, and 11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6