10220678 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2012)

Ex Parte Street et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 10, 2012

10220678 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2012)

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. 10/220,678 09/04/2002 Norman E. Street 047177-9060-02 1865 23585 7590 12/11/2012 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 100 EAST Wisconsin Avenue SUITE 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3784 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/11/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte NORMAN E. STREET, TED W. SUNDERLAND, CHARLES D. THOMAS, DORON SHAPIRO and MICHAEL J. D’ANNA ____________________ Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD and BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges. KILE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Norman E. Street et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 68-166. Claims 1-67 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Applicants’ disclosed subject matter is directed to a commercial refrigeration system having a distribution of control intelligence features relating to operation of the system and system compressors. Spec. 1, ll. 4-7; Spec. 2, ll.1-21. Appellants’ Figures 1 and 3 are reproduced below: Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 3 Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the claimed refrigeration system including food display merchandisers 10A-10B, each with an expansion valve 28A, 28B, and an evaporator 12A, 12B, respectively. Spec. 11, ll. 23- 29. A plurality of compressors 14A-14C and receiver 26 are employed to deliver compressed refrigerant to expansion valves 28A and 28B. Id. 12, ll. 1-26. A return line delivers spent coolant back to a suction header 16 which supplies intake lines leading into the compressors. Id. The compressors are each fitted with a Bus Compatible Compression Safety Control Module 48 (“BCCSCM”) which are connected to a master control 70. Spec. 14, ll. 10- 29 and Spec. 20, ll. 24-31. Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of a compressor 14A including a plurality of control and/or safety monitors (viz. discharge pressure sensor 50, temperature sensor 52, suction pressure 54, suction temperature 56, motor winding temperature 58, oil level indicator 60 and power phase monitor 62) all of which feed information to a BCCSCM. Spec. 15, ll. 4-19. Independent claim 129, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 4 129. A system comprising: a compressor; a compressor operating unit configured to monitor operation of the compressor with at least one sensor, the operating unit including a communications processor configured to create a first signal having a first protocol, the first signal being indicative of the operation of the compressor; and an electronic device in communication with the compressor operating unit, the electronic device including a processing unit, a communications module, and an interface, the electronic device being configured to receive the first signal, translate the first signal, create a second signal having a second protocol, the second signal being indicative of the operation of the compressor, and communicate the second signal via the interface. THE REJECTIONS Claims 88, 89, 92-101, 108-110, 113-121, 129, 132-139, 146, 148- 151, 153-158 and 160-165 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeWolf (US 5,279,458; iss. Jan. 18, 1994) and Torimitsu (US 5,586,446; iss. Dec. 24, 1996). Claims 91, 112 and 131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu and further over Anderson (US 3,874,187; iss. Apr. 1, 1975). Claim 159 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu and further over Kauffman (US 5,209,076; iss. May 11, 1993). Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 5 Claims 102-105, 122-125, 141-144 and 152 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu and further over Kobayashi (US 4,811,897; iss. Mar. 14, 1989). Claims 68-71, 73-77, 80, 81, 86, 87, 90, 106, 107, 111, 126-128, 130, 140, 145, 147 and 166 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu and further over admitted prior art. Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu and admitted prior art and further over Anderson. Claims 78 and 79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu and admitted prior art and further over Kauffman. Claims 82-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeWolf and Torimitsu and over admitted prior art and further over Kobayashi. OPINION First Rejection - Obviousness over DeWolf and Torimitsu Claims 88, 108, 129 and 146 are the independent claims subject to this ground of rejection. Independent claim 129, which we have noted above is illustrative, stands rejected as obvious over DeWolf and Torimitsu. The DeWolf patent is directed to a Network Control System 10 which includes a central desk computer 12 used to electronically control a plurality of individual space air condition units 16 known as Package Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) units for, as an example, a hotel. DeWolf, col. 2, ll. 40-47. Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 6 Figure 1 of the DeWolf patent is reproduced below: As illustrated on the right hand side of Figure 1 each PTAC includes an indoor heat exchange coil 22, an outdoor coil 24, a compressor 26 and an expansion means 29 which are all conventional in a self-contained unit. DeWolf, col. 2, ll. 47-56. The purpose of the system is to lower energy costs by allowing hotel management to remotely control, for example, air conditioning so that air conditioning is only on in rented rooms and lowering labor costs by allowing hotel maintenance personnel to monitor filter status of all PTAC units from a central location. Id., col. 3, ll. 10-15. Appellants assert that DeWolf fails to disclose “a compressor operating unit configured to monitor operation of the compressor with at least one sensor, the operating unit including a communications processor configured to create a first signal having a first protocol, the first signal being indicative of the operation of the compressor.” App. Br. 16 (Emphasis in original)1; see also Supp. Reply Br. 102 The Examiner responds that DeWolf discloses “a plurality of units 16 each of which includes a compressor 26 and a communication network.” 1 All citations to “App. Br.” reference the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 3, 2005. 2 All citations to “Supp. Reply Br.” reference the Supplemental Reply Brief filed on Jan. 8, 2009. Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 7 Ans. 5-6. Moreover, the Examiner contends that “the system will inherently require more that [sic] one sensor for providing signals indicative of the operating parameters of the unit and its compressor and require electronic devices capable of transmitting data signals to the central control to indicate the status of the local units.” Id. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that the DeWolf patent does not disclose specific details of the network communication system nor specific sensors used to detect a need for maintenance or system failure. Id. The Examiner points out that the Torimitsu reference discloses a network similar to DeWolf for monitoring a plurality of units in a refrigeration system (ice makers) including a compressor with greater detail regarding the communication system and sensors used to monitor the system. Id. Appellants respond by asserting that “the cited references do not teach or suggest all the claim limitations of claim 129.” Supp. Reply Br. 103. Specifically “neither the DeWolf reference nor the Torimitsu reference teaches or suggests, among other things, a compressor operating unit configured to monitor operation of the compressor with at least one sensor . . . . ” Id. at 10-11. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has failed to establish a factual underpinning in the cited prior art sufficient to reasonably conclude that the system recited in claim 129 was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. At most the Examiner finds that the references inherently disclose a compressor having sensors for providing signals to a central control regarding the status of local units. Such finding 3 All citations to “Supp. Reply Br.” reference the Supplemental Reply Brief filed on Jan. 8, 2009. Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 8 does not sufficiently address the limitations of claim 129, which more specifically calls for a compressor operating unit configured to monitor operation of the compressor with at least one sensor. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 129, and its dependent claims as being obvious over a combination of DeWolf and Torimitsu. Independent claims 88, 108, and 146 contain limitations similar to compressor operating unit limitations discussed in connection with claim 129, supra. Therefore, our analysis with respect to independent claim 129 applies directly to these other independent claims and their respective dependent claims. Remaining Rejections - Obviousness over DeWolf and Torimitsu in combination with one or more of Anderson, Kauffman, Kobayashi and admitted prior art The remaining rejections are based upon the same combination of DeWolf and Torimitsu utilized in the first rejection with the addition of one or more of Anderson, Kauffman, Kobayashi, and/or an assertion of admitted prior art. None of the additional cited patents and asserted acknowledgement of prior art cures the deficiencies of the DeWolf and Torimitsu combination. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 68-166. REVERSED Appeal 2010-009286 Application 10/220,678 9 hh