Frits Cornelis A. Baltus

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 14, 2019

13580529 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2019)

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.
13/580,529 08/22/2012 Frits Cornelis A. Baltus BALT3002/TJM/TL 8597
23364 7590 08/14/2019
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
COX, ALEXIS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2019 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):
MAIL@BACONTHOMAS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRITS CORNELIS A. BALTUS
____________________

Appeal 2018-001030
Application 13/580,5291
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducted an oral hearing with Appellant’s
representative on August 7, 2019.

1 “The real part[y in] interest . . . [is] Atlas Copco Airpower N.V.” Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Although the Examiner’s Final Office Action indicates that the Examiner
rejects claims 13–22 as obvious, in the Answer the Examiner withdraws the
obviousness rejection of claims 14–21. Final Office Action 3; Answer 2.
Appeal 2018-001030
Application 13/580,529

2
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, “the invention relates to a method for cool
drying gas in which water [vapor] is condensed from the gas by guiding the
gas through the secondary part of a heat exchanger.” Spec. 1, ll. 7–10. Each
of rejected claims 13 and 22 are independent claims. Below, we reproduce
claim 13 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
13. A method for cool drying compressed gas in which
water vapour is condensed out of the compressed gas by guiding
the compressed gas through a secondary part of a heat exchanger,
wherein a primary part of said heat exchanger comprises an
evaporator of a cooling circuit, said cooling circuit comprising a
speed-controlled compressor for circulating a coolant in the
cooling circuit, a condenser and expansion device, wherein at
least one measurement is made to determine at least one of the
evaporator temperature Tevaporator and the evaporator pressure
Pevaporator, and wherein a measurement is made to determine the
lowest gas temperature (LAT) or the dew point, the method
comprising the steps:
determining the load of the cooling circuit on the basis of
the at least one measurement which has been made to determine
at least one of evaporator temperature Tevaporator and the
evaporator pressure Pevaporator, and the lowest gas temperature
(LAT);
using a control unit to calculate a desired value for the
evaporator temperature or evaporator pressure that is required to
cool the compressed gas supplied to a set lowest gas temperature
(LATSP) at an outlet of the secondary part of the heat exchanger,
wherein the calculating the desired value includes the load and a
detected change in a parameter of a flow of the compressed gas;
and
using the control unit to control the speed of the
compressor to adjust the measured evaporator temperature or
evaporator pressure to the desired value for the evaporator
temperature or evaporator pressure to cool the compressed gas to
the set lowest gas temperature,
Appeal 2018-001030
Application 13/580,529

3
wherein the controlling the speed of the compressor
comprises the step of comparing the desired value for the
evaporator temperature or evaporator pressure to the respective
measured evaporator temperature Tevaporator or the evaporator
pressure Pevaporator.

REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vanderstraeten (EP 1 103 296 A1, pub. May 30, 2001)
and Dalla Valle et al. (US 2009/0025407 A1, pub. Jan. 29, 2009) (“Dalla
Valle”).

ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 13 recites, in relevant part,
“using a control unit to calculate a desired value for the evaporator
temperature or evaporator pressure that is required to cool the compressed
gas supplied to a set lowest gas temperature (LATSP) at an outlet of the
secondary part of the heat exchanger.” Appeal Br., Claims App. In
response to Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief that neither
Vanderstraeten nor Dalla Valle discloses this recitation (see, e.g., id. at 9–
13), the Examiner reiterates that “Vanderstraeten discloses controlling the
speed of the compressor to adjust the measured evaporator temperature to
the desired value for the evaporator temperature to cool the compressed gas
to the set lowest gas temperature (see paragraphs [0069] and [0070]. . .).”
Answer 3.
We do not sustain the rejection, however, because it is not clear to us
that the cited portion of Vanderstraeten discloses using a controller to
calculate a desired value for evaporator temperature or evaporator pressure
Appeal 2018-001030
Application 13/580,529

4
of a cooling gas flowing through a first heat-exchanger part which is
required to cool a compressed gas to a set lowest gas temperature at an
outlet of a second heat-exchanger part through which the compressed gas
flows, as claim 13 recites. Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 3–6. Instead, as
discussed below, it appears that this portion of Vanderstraeten discloses
using a controller to calculate a desired value for evaporator temperature or
evaporator pressure of a cooling gas flowing through a first heat-exchanger
part to cool the cooling gas flowing through the first heat-exchanger part to
a set temperature that is less than the lowest gas temperature (LAT) of the
compressed gas that flows through the second heat-exchanger part. By this
arrangement, the cooling gas flowing through the first heat-exchanger part
cools the compressed gas flowing through the second heat-exchanger part to
a temperature that is less than the compressed gas’s lowest gas temperature
(LAT), but (presumably) greater than the temperature of the cooling gas.
More specifically, Vanderstraeten’s paragraph 70 expressly discloses
that “[t]he evaporator temperature [that is disposed in the first heat-
exchanger part] has a set point, this is a set value to which control device 16
strives to bring the actually measured evaporator temperature, which value is
several degrees below the desired LAT” of the gas in the second heat-
exchanger part which is cooled by the gas in the first heat-exchanger part.
Restated, this paragraph describes that Vanderstraeten cools the cooling gas
that flows through the first heat-exchanger part to a set temperature that is
below the LAT of the compressed gas flowing through the second heat-
exchanger part, so that the compressed gas flowing through the second heat-
exchanger part will be cooled to a temperature below the LAT. Further,
Vanderstraeten’s paragraph 69 does not disclose anything about cooling the
Appeal 2018-001030
Application 13/580,529

5
compressed gas to a set temperature, and therefore does not disclose doing
so by controlling a temperature or pressure of the cooling gas in the first
heat-exchanger part. Thus, the Examiner does not support adequately that
either reference discloses anything about using a controller to calculate a
desired value for evaporator temperature or evaporator pressure of a cooling
gas flowing through a first heat-exchanger part which is required to cool a
compressed gas to a set lowest gas temperature at an outlet of a second
heat-exchanger part through which the compressed gas flows.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 13. Inasmuch as independent claim 22 includes a similar
recitation, and the Examiner’s basis for the rejection is substantially the
same as the basis for claim 13’s rejection, we also do not sustain claim 22’s
obviousness rejection.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13
and 22.

REVERSED