Ex Parte Asprovski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

12811272 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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.
12/811,272 06/30/2010 Zvonko Asprovski PA-0007505-US 4645
87059 7590
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
TEITELBAUM, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZVONKO ASPROVSKI and
SURESH DURAISAMY
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
3, 6—10, 12, 13, and 16—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm, designating our affirmance as including a new ground of
rejection.
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a high pressure refrigeration system that
includes pressure relief on its low pressure side. Claims 1 and 10 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A vapor compression system comprising:
a refrigerant circuit having in serial flow relationship at least
one compressor for compressing CO2 vapor as a refrigerant, a heat
rejecting heat exchanger, an expansion device, and a heat absorbing
heat exchanger;
a compressor unloading circuit fluidly interconnecting an
intermediate stage of said at least one compressor to a low pressure
point between said heat absorbing heat exchanger and a suction inlet
of said at least one compressor, said compressor unloading circuit
including an unloading valve; and
at least one pressure relief device disposed between said
unloading valve and said intermediate stage for relieving pressure in
said compressor unloading circuit during periods in which the
system is not operating but is exposed to relatively high temperature
conditions.
REFERENCES
Ozaki et al. US 6,044,655 Apr. 4, 2000
Key US 6,178,759 B1 Jan. 30,2001
REJECTIONS1
Claims 1—3, 7—10, 12, 13, and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ozaki. Ans. 5.
1 Additional rejections have been rendered moot by the cancellation of the
affected claims. See Br. 1 (stating that claims 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 20 have
been canceled); Adv. Act. May 13, 2014 (indicating the amendment of April
17, 2014 would be entered for purposes of appeal).
2
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ozaki and Key. Ans. 9.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 7—10, 12, 13, and 17—19—Anticipation—Ozaki
The Examiner finds that the embodiment depicted in Ozaki’s Figure
29 discloses the structure of claim 1. Final Act. 5. Relevant to this appeal,
the Examiner finds that Ozaki’s cooler 5 corresponds to the claimed heat
absorbing heat exchanger, and passageway 28 corresponds to the claimed
compressor unloading circuit that “fluidly interconnect[s] an intermediate
stage .. ..of [] [a] compressor”—the location identified as 27-2 in Figure
29—“to a low pressure point”—the location downstream of pressure
reducing valve 4—that the Examiner contends is “between” the heat
absorbing heat exchanger (cooler 5) and a suction inlet of a compressor. Id.
(citing Ozaki, 8:40-44, 9:25—29, Figs. 2, 29). The Examiner further finds
that Ozaki’s pressure reducing valve 4 corresponds to the claimed
“unloading valve,” and that Ozaki’s main pressure reducer 3 corresponds to
the claimed “at least one pressure reducer disposed between the unloading
valve and the intermediate stage.”2 Id. In so finding, the Examiner
interprets “between” to mean “in common to” or “shared by.” Id. at 10.
Appellants respond that Ozaki fails to disclose several of claim 1 ’s
limitations. First, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s purported “low
2 The Examiner deems the limitation “for relieving pressure in said
compressor unloading circuit during periods in which the system is not
operating but is exposed to relatively high temperature conditions” to be a
“recitation[] of intended use” to which the Examiner accords “limited
patentable weight.” Final Act. 5—6. Appellants do not challenge this
determination.
3
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
pressure point”—the point downstream of pressure reducer 4—“is not
between the evaporator 7[3] and a suction inlet of [the compressor].” Br. 6—
7. As a result, Appellants contend, Ozaki’s passageway 28 cannot
correspond to the claimed compressor unloading circuit, and pressure relief
valve 4 cannot correspond to the claimed unloading valve. Id. at 7.
Appellants further contend that, even if pressure relief valve 4 can be
considered the unloading valve, pressure reducer 3 cannot correspond to the
claimed “pressure relief device” because it is not “disposed between said
unloading valve and said intermediate stage.” Id. According to Appellants,
for it to be so disposed, pressure reducer 3 “would need to be located in the
path downstream of element 4 and upstream of the intermediate stage of [the
compressor], which it is clearly not.” Id. Appellants state that the
“Examiner uses the parenthetical ‘(in common)’ as a substitute for the term
‘between’” in claim 1, and that “it is not clear” what the Examiner means by
“in common to.” Id.
The Examiner responds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“between” is “in common to” or “shared by.'” Ans. 8. According to the
Examiner, “a person skilled in the art at the time of invention would
recognize that the low pressure point is shared by, or between, the heat
absorbing heat exchanger and a suction inlet of the at least one compressor
at least by being within the same closed circuit system.” Id. The Examiner
contends that the claims “do not establish a frame, point of reference, or
3 As noted above, the Examiner designated Ozaki’s cooler 5, not Ozaki’s
evaporator 7, as corresponding to the claimed heat absorbing heat
exchanger. Final Act. 5. Appellants do not expressly dispute that
designation. Accordingly, we understand Appellants to be arguing that the
alleged low pressure point is not between cooler 5 and the compressor inlet.
4
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
specific order of ‘fluidly interconnecting’ but rather broadly recite[]
‘between’.” Id.', see also id. at 10 (stating that claims “do not require at least
one pressure device disposed intermediate or central to said unloading valve
and said intermediate stage”).
The central issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of the term
“between.” As the Examiner notes, the Specification does not expressly
define the term. In the absence of an express definition, it can be helpful to
consult a general purpose dictionary for guidance. Comaper Corp. v. Antec,
Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips v. AWHCorp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1322—23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The term “between”
has two general meanings: (1) “in common to” or “shared by”; and (2) “in
an intermediate space or interval.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary 117(11th ed. 2005). The Examiner relies on the first of these
definitions as the broadest reasonable interpretation of “between.” Final
Act. 10; Ans. 8. We disagree, however, that this interpretation is reasonable,
because it does not make sense in the context of the claims and the
Specification. As our reviewing court has stated, “[wjhile the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give the Board an
unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard for the full
claim language and the written description.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). “Instead,
it is the use of the words in the context of the written description and
customarily by those of skill in the relevant art that accurately reflects both
the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms in the claims.” Id.
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Where there are several
common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point
5
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings.”
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa ’per Azioni, 158 F.3d
1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Interpreting “between” as “in common to” or “shared by” would make
sense in some contexts, such as in referring to an inheritance divided
“between” several heirs. See Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at 117.
But the context in which “between” is used in the claims and Specification
makes clear that it is used in a spatial sense to identity the physical location
of an element of the refrigerant circuit with respect to the physical location
of other elements. For example, the Specification identifies the “low
pressure side” and the “high pressure side” of the disclosed embodiment in
terms of the portion of the refrigerant circuit that is physically “between”
other portions of the circuit. Spec. Tflf 18, 21. The Specification also uses
the term to identify, spatially, the specific portions of the circuit that require
additional pressure-relief mechanisms. Id. 28—29. In light of this usage,
we consider the second dictionary definition noted above, “in an
intermediate space or interval,” to be the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification.
Nonetheless, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, because
they are based on an interpretation of “between” that is overly narrow.
Appellants suggest that we should interpret “between” to incorporate
concepts of “upstream” and “downstream.” For example, Appellants argue
that for element 3 to be between element 4 and the intermediate stage of the
compressor, it “would need to be located in the path downstream of element
4 and upstream of the intermediate stage of compressor 1 or la.” Br. 7
6
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
(emphasis added). The claims are not so precisely drawn, however. As
illustrated in Figure 29 of Ozaki, element 3 can be considered to be between
element 4 and the compressor intermediate stage, point 27-2, if point 27-2 is
reached from the inlet of compressor stage la rather than from line 28.
Likewise, the point downstream of element 4 can be considered between
cooler 5 and the compressor inlet if the inlet is reached from the outlet of the
compressor. Therefore, we find that Ozaki discloses the claimed compressor
unloading circuit, unloading valve, and pressure relief device. However,
because we are relying on a claim construction that differs from that on
which the Examiner relied, we designate this decision as including a new
ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) in order to afford
Appellants an opportunity to respond.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. We
designate our affirmance as including a new ground of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
7
Appeal 2015-001406
Application 12/811,272
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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; 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
8