Ex Parte Butler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2012

11941669 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2012)

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.
11/941,669 11/16/2007 William P. Butler 7578W-000355/US/DVD 1093
28997 7590 11/13/2012
HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C
7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
EXAMINER
ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3784
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM P. BUTLER, STEVEN L. CAREY,
HUNG PHAM, and NAGARAJ JAYANTH
____________________

Appeal 2010-009312
Application 11/941,669
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: KEN B. BARRETT, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009312
Application 11/941,669

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 3,
4, and 8. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an interactive control system for an HVAC
system. Claim 3, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
3. A controller for an indoor blower unit
of an HVAC system capable of operating in a full
capacity mode and at least one reduced capacity
mode, the controller comprising:
a communication means for receiving
information relating to the operating capacity of a
compressor from at least one other HVAC system
component separate from the indoor blower unit,
wherein the communication means comprises a
peer-to-peer network connection that enables
reception of information from at least an outdoor
unit controller and sending of information to at
least the outdoor unit controller;
a processor for controlling the operation of
an indoor blower fan motor in a full capacity mode
of operation and in at least one reduced capacity
mode of operation, wherein the processor receives
information relating to a change in operating
capacity of the compressor from the at least one
other HVAC system component and responsively
operates the indoor blower fan motor in a full
capacity speed or a reduced capacity speed based
on the received information relating to a change in
the operating capacity of a compressor;
Appeal 2010-009312
Application 11/941,669

3
where in response to receiving information
that the compressor is only able to operate at a
reduced capacity, the processor responsively
controls the operation of the indoor blower fan
motor in at least one reduced capacity speed.

REFERENCES
Sekigami
Helt
Attridge
US 4,878,357
US 6,282,910
US 6,879,881 B1
Nov. 7, 1989
Sep. 4, 2001
Apr. 12, 2005

REJECTION
Claims 3, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekigami in view of Attridge and Helt. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
Claim 3
Claim 3 is directed to a controller for an indoor blower unit
comprising, inter alia, a processor that receives information relating to a
change in operating capacity of an outdoor compressor and that operates the
indoor blower fan motor in response to that information – i.e., when the
processor receives information that the compressor is only able to operate at
a reduced capacity, the processor operates the indoor blower fan motor at a
reduced speed. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner found that “Sekigami’s indoor unit controllers 24a-c
are capable of receiving information relating to the operating capacity of
compressor (2) as illustrated in figure 1 such as temperature data from room
temperature sensors 25a-c, since room temperature data is indirectly related
to the operation of the compressor.” Ans. 7. The Examiner noted, however,
Appeal 2010-009312
Application 11/941,669

4
that Sekigami does not disclose a processor that responsively operates the
indoor blower fan motor in a full capacity speed or a reduced capacity speed
such that in response to receiving information that the compressor is only
able to operate at a reduced capacity, the processor responsively controls the
operation of the indoor blower fan motor in at least one reduced capacity
speed. Id. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner found that Helt teaches an
HVAC system comprising a controller that “enables the HVAC system to
operate in a reduced capacity mode, wherein an indoor blower (34) operates
at the reduced speed based upon a compressor (38) capacity and enables the
HVAC system to operate in a full capacity mode, wherein the indoor blower
operates at the reduced speed based upon a compressor capacity.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have
modified the controller of Sekigami . . . to include the controlling of the
indoor blower in multiple capacity modes based on the operating capacity of
the compressor as taught by Helt in order to operate the HVAC system as
efficient[ly] as possible, thus reducing operating costs.” Ans. 5. Appellants
dispute that Sekigami teaches a processor that receives information related
to a change in the compressor’s operating capacity, or that Helt teaches a
processor that operates the indoor blower motor in response to that
information.
We agree with Appellants that Sekigami does not teach a processor
that receives information relating to a change in operating capacity of the
compressor. Sekigami’s switches 24a-c receive inside room temperature
information from temperature sensors 25a-c, respectively, but a particular
room’s temperature likely depends on a number of other factors – outside
Appeal 2010-009312
Application 11/941,669

5
weather, the room’s humidity, activity within the room, the operation of
HVAC system components other than the compressor – so that the room’s
temperature alone would seem to be a poor predictor of the compressor’s
operating capacity.
We also agree with Appellants that Helt does not teach a processor
that, in response to receiving information that the compressor is only able to
operate at a reduced capacity, reduces the speed of the indoor blower fan
motor. According to the flow chart depicted in Figure 2, Helt’s system uses
controller 55 to control the indoor blower based on room temperature as
compared to a thermostat setting, the running of a pre-cool timer and post
timer, and whether air cleaning is needed. Helt, Figs. 1, 2; col. 5, ll. 66-67,
col. 6, ll. 9-11. If “Hi Cooling” is needed, and after the pre-cool timer has
elapsed, the compressor and indoor blower will run at high speed. Helt, col.
6, ll. 26-37. But if the compressor were to malfunction such that it is “only
able to operate at reduced capacity [low speed],” there is no mechanism by
which controller 55 can switch the indoor blower to low-speed operation.
And while it is possible that the compressor malfunction will eventually
result in a rising temperature, there is no mechanism by which a rising
temperature would cause controller 55 to reduce the blower speed. One
would actually expect the contrary; high temperatures would be expected to
generate a “hi cooling needed” signal, which would cause the blower to run
in high speed. Helt, col. 6, ll. 9-11, 29-37. The Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3 is not sustained.
Claims 4 and 8.
Claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 3 except that it requires that
when the processor receives information that the compressor is only able to
Appeal 2010-009312
Application 11/941,669

6
operate at full capacity, the processor responsively controls the operation of
the indoor fan motor in a full capacity speed. The Examiner relied on Helt
to teach this limitation. We do not believe the examiner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Helt teaches this limitation. Similar to
our analysis above, the flow chart depicted in Helt Figure 2 does not teach
how the indoor blower may be run in high speed when the compressor is
only able to run at high speed. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 4.
Claim 8 depends from claim 4, and further requires that the controller
communicate information relating to the operating condition of the indoor
blower fan motor to one of a thermostat or the outdoor unit controller. App.
Br. 16. For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 4, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 8.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 8
is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh