Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2018

14234712 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/234,712 01124/2014 Jian Sun
87059 7590 04/13/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
59454US02 (U300073US2) 9506
EXAMINER
DIAZ, MARCOS 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIAN SUN, HANS-JOACHIM HUFF, ARYN SHAPIRO,
GILBERT B. HOFSDAL, MINGFEI GAN, and WENHUA LI
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234,712
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-15. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is CARRIER CORPORATION, the assignee of
record." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates "generally to refrigerant vapor
compression systems and, more particularly, to temperature control logic for
a refrigeration system." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A refrigeration system comprising:
compressor having a first stage and as second stage;
a motor driving the compressor;
a heat rejecting heat exchanger having a fan drawing
ambient fluid over the heat rejecting heat exchanger, the heat
rejecting heat exchanger including an intercooler and a gas
cooler, the intercooler coupled to an outlet of the first stage and
the gas cooler coupled to an outlet of the second stage;
a flash tank coupled to an outlet of the gas cooler;
a primary expansion device coupled to an outlet of the
flash tank;
a heat absorbing heat exchanger coupled to an outlet of
the primary expansion device, an outlet of the heat absorbing
heat exchanger coupled to the suction port of the first stage;
an economizer valve coupling the flash tank to an inlet of
the second stage;
an unload valve coupling an outlet of the intercooler to
the suction port of the first stage;
a controller for implementing a pulldown mode for
cooling a space to a control temperature within a band of a
control temperature setpoint, a control mode for maintaining the
control temperature within the band of the control temperature
setpoint and a staging logic mode for reducing system capacity
while maintaining the control temperature within the band
range of the control temperature setpoint;
wherein the staging logic mode includes closing the
economizer valve and opening the unload valve.
2
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
Lifson
Boer
Voorhis
Mitra
Jiang
Chen
Fujimoto
Chen '825
References2
US 2006/0225445 Al Oct. 12, 2006
US 2008/0195256 Al Aug. 14, 2008
US 2010/0107668 Al May 6, 2010
US 2010/0115975 Al May 13, 2010
US 2010/0205988 Al Aug. 19, 2010
US 2010/0263393 Al Oct. 21, 2010
US 2011/0048055 Al Mar. 3, 2011
US 2011/0138825 Al June 16, 2011
Rejections3
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, and Mitra. (Final Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Jiang. (Final
Action 5.)
III. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Chen'825. (Final Action 7.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Voorhis. (Final Action 8.)
V. The Examiner rejects claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Boer. (Final Action 9.)
2 Our quotations from these references will omit, where applicable, bolding
and/ or italicization of reference numerals.
3 We understand the Examiner's failure to list the Mitra reference in the
rejection headings for Rejections II-V (see Final Action 5, 7-9) to be an
inadvertent oversight; and the Appellants' briefing reflects the same
understanding (see Appeal Br. 3).
3
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-9 and 12-15) depending directly or
indirectly therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites a "refrigeration system" comprising a
"compressor having a first stage and a second stage," a "gas cooler coupled
to an outlet of the [compressor's] second stage," a "flash tank coupled to an
outlet of the gas cooler," an "economizer valve coupling the flash tank to an
inlet of the [compressor's] second stage," and an "intercooler coupled to an
outlet of the [compressor's] first stage." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds Chen discloses a refrigeration system 10
comprising a two-stage compressor 20, a gas cooler 40 coupled to the
compressor's second stage 20b, a flash tank 60 coupled to an outlet of the
gas cooler 40, and an economizer valve 66 coupling the flash tank 60 to the
compressor's second stage 20b. (See Final Action 2-3; see also Chen,
i-fi-1 20-21, Fig. 1.) The Examiner also finds that it would have been obvious
to modify Chen's refrigeration system 10 with "an intercooler coupled to an
outlet of the first stage compressor, as taught by Fujimoto." (Final Action 4;
see also Fujimoto i16.) The Appellants do not dispute these findings by the
Examiner. (See Appeal Br. 3-5.)
Independent claim 1 also recites a "controller" for "implementing"
three modes of operation, namely a "pulldown mode," a "control mode," and
a "staging logic mode." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The "staging logic
mode" is "for reducing system capacity while maintaining the control
temperature within the band range of the control temperature setpoint." (Id.)
4
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
In other words, the "staging logic mode" recited in independent claim 1 is a
reduced-capacity mode of operation.
The Examiner finds that Chen discloses a controller 100 for
implementing three modes of operation, namely a "pull down mode," a
"capacity mode," and a "part load mode." (Final Action 3; see also Chen
i-f 29.) In Chen's part load mode, "the compression device 20 is operated at a
selected cooling capacity that is less than its maximum cooling capacity."
(Chen i-f 31). In other words, Chen's "part load mode," like the "staging
logic mode" recited in independent claim 1, is a reduced-capacity mode of
operation.
Insofar as the Appellants argue that Chen does not show or suggest
the "staging logic mode" recited in independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 4),
we are unpersuaded by these arguments. According to the Appellants, their
staging logic mode "allows the compressor to keep running even in periods
of low cooling demand so that starting and stopping of the compressor is
avoided." (Id.) However, the Appellants do not point, with particularity, to
claim limitations requiring continuous running of the compressor during the
staging logic mode. Moreover, as noted by the Examiner (see Answer 4),
Chen teaches that its part load mode of operation can include a "continuous
running mode." (Chen i-f 31.)
Independent claim 1 additionally requires the staging logic mode to
include "closing the economizer valve." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that "one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
economizer valve 66 would be in its closed position when a reduction in
capacity is required." (Answer 4.) In other words, it would have been
5
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
obvious to close an economizer valve during a reduced-capacity mode of
operation, such as Chen's part load mode.
The Appellants appear to argue that the prior art references do not
precisely teach closing the economizer valve 66 when Chen's refrigeration
system 10 is operating in its part load mode. (See Appeal Br. 4.) For
example, the Appellants contend that Chen's discussion of its economizer
valve 66 does not "refer to a staging logic mode," and that "Fujimoto is not
cited as disclosing a staging logic mode that includes closing an economizer
valve." (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments because, as noted by the
Examiner (see Final Action 3--4), the record establishes that the known
purpose of an economizer (e.g., a flash tank) is "increased capacity."
(Lifson, i-f 22.) The Examiner's rejection relies upon one of ordinary skill in
the art being armed with this knowledge, and therefore appreciating that the
increased capacity provided by Chen's flash tank 60 would be contrary to a
reduced-capacity mode of operation. The Appellants' arguments do not
adequately address why the Examiner errs in finding that one of ordinary
skill in the art, armed with this knowledge, would have recognized that
eliminating the capacity contribution of Chen's flash tank 60 (i.e., closing
the economizer valve 66) would be in concord with Chen's part load mode
of operation.
Independent claim 1 further recites "an unload valve coupling an
outlet of the intercooler to the suction port of the [compressor's] first stage."
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to afford Chen's refrigeration
system 10 with an unload valve, as taught by Mitra, to provide its part load
6
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
mode of operation "with additional control to further reduce system
capacity." (Final Action 5; see also Mitra i-f 36, Fig. 1.)
The Appellants argue that "one of ordinary skill would not include the
unload valve of Mitra in Chen." (Appeal Br. 5.) According to the
Appellants, Chen discloses "cycling the compressor on and off' and
"specifically states that turning the compressor on and off minimizes costs."
(Id. at 4.) The Appellants contend that, due to this desire to minimize costs,
using an unload valve in Chen's refrigeration system would "drastically
alter[] the operation of Chen" and/or "change the principle of operation of
Chen." (Id. at 4--5.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments because, as discussed above
and as noted by the Examiner (see Answer 4 ), Chen teaches that its part load
mode of operation can include a "continuous running mode." (Chen i-f 31.)
The Appellants' arguments do not adequately address why the Examiner errs
in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that,
during Chen's continuous running mode, an upload valve would provide
additional control to further reduce system capacity.
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded by the Appellants'
position that the Examiner errs in determining that the refrigeration system
recited independent claim 1 would have been obvious over the prior art.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, and Mitra
(Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 2 and 6
Claims 2 and 6 depend from independent claim 1 and require the
refrigeration system to further comprise "a secondary expansion device
7
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
positioned between the gas cooler and the flash tank." (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) The Examiner finds that Chen's refrigeration system 10 comprises a
secondary expansion device 65 positioned between its gas cooler 40 and its
flash tank 60. (See Final Action 5; see also Chen i-f 27, Fig. 1.)
Additionally, dependent claim 2 requires the pulldown mode, and
dependent claim 6 requires the control mode, to include "controlling the
secondary expansion device to control discharge pressure at the
compressor." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Chen's
controller 100 controls Chen's secondary expansion device 65 to control
compressor-discharge pressure. (See Final Action 5; see also Chen i-f 26.)
Insofar as Chen does not specifically say that this control can be executed
during its pulldown mode and/or its capacity mode, the Examiner finds that
Jiang provides teachings on "capacity enhancement." (See Final Action 6;
see also Jiang i-f 50).
The Appellants argue that Jiang does not disclose an expansion device
"in the same position as" that recited in dependent claims 2 and 6, namely
between the gas cooler and the flash tank. (Appeal Br. 5-6.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above and as noted by the
Examiner (see Answer 7), Chen discloses a secondary expansion device 65
which is located between the gas cooler 40 and the flash tank 60. The
Appellants do not adequately address why the Examiner errs in finding that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that control of Chen's
secondary expansion device 65 (which would in tum control compressor-
discharge pressure) could be executed in its pull down and/ or capacity modes
of operation. (See Appeal Br. 5---6.)
8
Appeal2017-007559
Application 14/234, 712
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Jiang
(Rejection II).
Dependent Claims 3-5, 7-9, and 12-15
The Appellants do not argue these dependent claims separately from
independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 3---6; see also Answer 6-8); and
consequently they fall therewith. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chen, Fujimoto, and Mitra (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen,
Fujimoto, Mitra, and Jiang (Rejection II); we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Chen '825 (Rejection III); we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Voorhis (Rejection IV);
and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 13-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Fujimoto, Mitra, and Boer
(Rejection V).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9