Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

14345034 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/345,034 03/14/2014
26096 7590 07/16/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lin Sun
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.
67426-031 PUSl 7748
EXAMINER
VAZQUEZ, ANA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIN SUN, PAUL D. BISHOP, HUAI YU LIN,
JOSE ALVARES, and RAMESH VEERASURLA
Appeal2017-008336
Application 14/345,034
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-9, 11-14, and 17-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-008336
Application 14/345,034
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A refrigerant system, comprising:
a main refrigerant loop in communication with a
condenser, an expansion device, an evaporator, and a compressor
driven by a motor;
a motor cooling line to convey a motor cooling fluid
between the main refrigerant loop and the motor; and
a sub-cooling line to convey a sub-cooling fluid between
the main refrigerant loop and a sub-cooling heat exchanger, the
sub-cooling heat exchanger in communication with the motor
cooling line at a point upstream of the motor, and wherein the
motor cooling line includes a pump upstream of the sub-cooling
heat exchanger.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kishimoto
Holden
us 5,884,498
US 6,324,858 Bl
REJECTIONS
Mar. 23, 1999
Dec. 4, 2001
I. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-14 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kishimoto.
II. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kishimoto and Holden.
2
Appeal2017-008336
Application 14/345,034
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, and 17
The Examiner finds that Kishimoto discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for a "motor cooling line [that] includes a pump upstream of
the sub-cooling heat exchanger" in the embodiment illustrated by Figure 9 A.
Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner identifies Kishimoto's
supercooler 76 as corresponding to the claimed sub-cooling heat exchanger
and Kishimoto' s heat transfer tube 77 as corresponding to the claimed motor
cooling line. Id. at 3. The Examiner further finds that in the embodiment
illustrated in Figure 1 A Kishimoto teaches a "refrigeration system including
a motor cooling line (wherein said motor cooling line is considered to be the
line including pump 44 ), wherein said motor cooling line includes a pump
( 44 ). " Id. The Examiner explains that in this embodiment the pump is
included in the motor cooling line "to pressurize liquid refrigerant in such a
way as to be brought to a supercooled state, and thus supply said refrigerant
for the lubrication of the bearings in a compressor." Id. ( citing Kishimoto
7:45-50). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious "to modify the embodiment of Fig. 9A by incorporating a
pump in the sub-cooling line, such that said pump is installed upstream of
the subcooling heat exchanger." Id. The Examiner reasons that this
configuration would "facilitate the supply of cooled refrigerant to the
motor." Id.
Appellants contend that "[t]he Examiner's rejection does not provide
a rational reason for modifying Kishimoto." Appeal Br. 3. In support of
this contention, Appellants argue that "in order to meet the claims the
Examiner would need to place Kishimoto's pump 44 just upstream of tank
78 and adjacent the throttling mechanism 79 in Figure 9A." Id. Appellants
3
Appeal2017-008336
Application 14/345,034
provided an annotated version of Kishimoto's Figure 9A, reproduced below,
to illustrate this point.
Fl G. 9A
Kishimoto' s Figure 9 A "is a system diagram of a turborefrigerator."
Kishimoto 6:64. Appellants' annotations identify where the pump would be
provided in accordance with their understanding of the Examiner's rejection.
See Appeal Br. 3--4. Specifically, the annotations identify a location
between Kishimoto's throttling mechanism 79 and supercooler 76 which
includes heat transfer tube 77 as the location where the rejection indicates
that the pump would be added to the system shown in Kishimoto' s Figure
9A.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner clarifies that
the Examiner meant to provide the pump 44 as disclosed in the
embodiment of Fig. IA, upstream of the sub-cooling heat
exchanger 7 6 in the motor cooling line of Fig. 9 A as can be seen
below, since it wouldn't make sense to provide said pump 44 in
the sub-cooling line adjacent the throttling mechanism 79
because it would affect the function of said throttling mechanism
79.
4
Appeal2017-008336
Application 14/345,034
Ans. 2. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Kishimoto's Figure
9A. Id. at 4. We reproduce this figure below:
This annotated version of Kishimoto' s Figure 9 A shows a pump
added downstream of supercooler 7 6. See id. Figure 9 A also illustrates the
line corresponding to the main refrigerant loop (loop indicated by solid
arrows) and the line corresponding to the motor cooling line (line
represented by broken-line arrows). See id.
Noting that "[t]he Examiner now argues that one would provide a
pump in the location labeled on Page 4 of the Answer, as opposed to the
location adjacent the valve 79," Appellants argue that "by providing a pump
in this location, the Examiner has provided a pump that is downstream of
Kishimoto' s alleged sub-cooling heat exchanger ( element 7 6), rather than
upstream of the sub-cooling heat exchanger as required by the claims."
5
Appeal2017-008336
Application 14/345,034
Reply Br. 3. Appellants are correct. Claim 1 requires a "motor cooling line
[that] includes a pump upstream of the sub-cooling heat exchanger." Appeal
Br. 7 (Claims App.). The rejection, as clarified in the Answer, proposes the
addition of a pump in the line identified as corresponding to the claimed
motor cooling line downstream of the sub-cooling heat exchanger (i.e.
Kishimoto' s supercooler 7 6). Such a configuration does not meet the
limitation requiring "a pump upstream of the sub-cooling heat exchanger."
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-7, 9, 11, 1 7, and 18, which depend therefrom. Claim
12 similarly requires a "pump of the motor cooling line [that] is upstream of
the sub-cooling heat exchanger." Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 12, and claims 13,
14, and 19, which depend therefrom, for the same reason.
Rejection II: Obviousness of Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). The
rejection of claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 11-
12. Thus, we understand the rejection of claim 8 to have been clarified in
the Answer in the same manner as the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 8 suffers from the deficiencies discussed supra. For this
reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6