Richard G. Lord et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 26, 202014003715 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/003,715 09/06/2013 Richard G. Lord 57141US02 (U210004US2) 1002 87059 7590 02/26/2020 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER ZEC, FILIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2020 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 RICHARD G. LORD, EUGENE D. DADDIS JR., and KENNETH J. NIEVA ___________________ Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1–12 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2– 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a rooftop air conditioning unit with heat reclaim capability. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 13 and 22 are independent. Claim 13 is reproduced below: 13. A rooftop air conditioning unit, comprising: a housing, disposed on a roof of a building, defining a pathway from an inlet that is fed by exterior and/or interior air to an outlet leading to a conditioned space within the building; an air conditioner to produce conditioned air to be supplied to the conditioned space, the air conditioner being disposed within the housing and including an evaporator, a compressor operably disposed downstream from the evaporator and a condenser operably interposed between the compressor and the evaporator; and a heat reclaim module disposed in the housing with the air conditioner along the pathway between the inlet and the outlet within the housing and operably coupled to the air conditioner to 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Carrier Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 3 be receptive of heated fluid produced in the compressor for heat exchange operations; at least one valve downstream of the compressor and upstream of the condenser and the heat reclaim module, the at least one valve controllable to adjust the refrigerant provided to the condenser and the heat reclaim module, outlets of both the condenser and the heat reclaim module coupled to an inlet of the evaporator, wherein refrigerant passing the condenser is provided to the evaporator and refrigerant passing the heat reclaim module is provided to the evaporator. REJECTIONS I. Claims 13, 14, and 17–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pendergrass, Cooper, and Ringquist.2 Final Act. 5–12. II. Claims 15, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pendergrass, Cooper, Ringquist, and Fisher.3 Final Act. 12–14. ANALYSIS I. The Rejection The Examiner asserts that claims 13, 14, and 17–21 would have been obvious over Pendergrass, Cooper, and Ringquist. Final Act. 5–12. As an overview, the Examiner finds that Pendergrass discloses an air conditioning 2 Pendergrass (US 5,628,200, issued May 13, 1997); Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876, issued Jan. 6, 1981); Ringquist (US 3,127,929, issued Apr. 7, 1964). 3 Fisher (US 4,409,796, issued Oct. 18, 1983). Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 4 unit as claimed in independent claim 13, with three exceptions. Final Act. 5–9. First, the Examiner relies on Cooper for the disclosure of a rooftype air condition housing that encloses an evaporator, compressor, and condenser. Final Act. 5–6. Second, the Examiner relies on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill for placing the heat reclaim module with the air conditioner as obvious to try. Final Act. 6–7. Third, the Examiner relies on Ringquist as disclosing at least one value downstream of the compressor and upstream of the condenser, as claimed. Final Act. 7–8. II. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant makes two arguments for the patentability of independent claim 13. For the reasons that follow, neither argument is persuasive of error by the Examiner. A. Compressor, condenser, and evaporator disposed in a housing First, Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not disclose a compressor, condenser, and evaporator disposed in a housing as claimed. Appeal Br. 4–6. In support of this argument, Appellant contends that Pendergrass’s system cannot be installed on a roof because it requires an indoor coil and an outdoor coil while the proposed modification would collocate both coils within a housing, essentially eliminating Pendergrass’s indoor coil. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant concludes that there is no motivation to make such a modification because it would change Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 5 Pendergrass’s principle of operation and would eliminate the ability to both heat and cool. Appeal Br. 5–6 (citing MPEP § 2145). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is premised on a mischaracterization of the rejection. The Examiner explains, and we agree, that the proposed modification mounts Pendergrass’s indoor coil (indoor coil 62) in a housing, as taught by Cooper, with that coil in fluid communication with the indoor space. Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 9–10. Therefore, the proposed positon of the indoor coil, like the original position, is in fluid communication with the space to be cooled. See Pendergrass 9:1–12, Fig. 2. Consequently, the rejection does not: eliminate the indoor coil, change the principle of operation of Pendergrass’s system, or render Pendergrass’s system inoperable for its intended purpose. B. Refrigerant passing the condenser being provided to the evaporator and refrigerant passing the heat reclaim module being provided the evaporator Second, Appellant argues that the proposed combination would not have resulted in refrigerant passing the condenser being provided to the evaporator and refrigerant passing the heat reclaim module being provided the evaporator (“the refrigerant circulation limitation”). Appeal Br. 6. Appellant elaborates that modifying Pendergrass so that the condenser and heat reclaim module are in parallel, as disclosed by Ringquist, eliminates Pendergrass’s first mode of operation, rendering Pendergrass unsatisfactory Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 6 for its intended purpose so that there is no rationale for the proposed modification. Appeal Br. 7. As an initial matter, Appellant’s argument that Pendergrass does not disclose a mode that meets the refrigerant circulation limitation (Appeal Br. 6–7) is inapposite because the Examiner relies upon the combination of Pendergrass and Ringquist to meet this limitation (Final Act. 7–8 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). Indeed, Appellant concedes that Ringquist’s condenser 26 and heat reclaim module 24 are connected to evaporator 16. Appeal Br. 7; see also Ringquist 2:3–6, Fig. 1. That is, Appellant concedes that Ringquist circulates refrigerant as claimed. Appellant’s argument is also misplaced in that the Examiner does not rely on Pendergrass’s first mode of operation. Rather, the Examiner proposes to modify the teaching of Pendregrass’s second mode of operation with Ringquist’s refrigerant circulation. Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 11; Pendergrass, Fig. 2. Consequently, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error by the Examiner. III. Conclusion Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of error by the Examiner with regard to independent claim 13. Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 14 and 17–21 apart from its arguments for claim 13. Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 7 Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 13, 14, and 17–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pendergrass, Cooper, and Ringquist. Appellant argues claims 15 and 16 based on dependency from independent claim 13. Appeal Br. 7–8. Independent claim 22 is similar to independent claim 13, and Appellant simply repeats the arguments for claim 13. Consequently, our analysis above is determinative for claims 15, 16, and 22 as well. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13, 14, 17–21 103(a) Pendergrass, Cooper, Ringquist 13, 14, 17–21 15, 16, 22 103(a) Pendergrass, Cooper, Ringquist, Fisher 15, 16, 22 Overall Outcome 13–22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2018-003429 Application 14/003,715 8 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation