Ex Parte Crane

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2019

14389488 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/389,488
75576 7590
Johnson Controls, Inc.
c/o Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
09/30/2014
03/11/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Curtis Christian Crane
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.
26424-0073-US 1
(JOCI:0165
CONFIRMATION NO.
4342
EXAMINER
FURDGE, LARRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2019 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
powell@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CUR TIS CHRISTIAN CRANE 1
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1 and 3-20. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Johnson Controls Technology Company is identified as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
2 Appellant's Request to Participate in the Patent Prosecution Highway
Program and Petition to Make Special under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.102( a) was
granted on April 5, 2016.
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
1. A method of controlling capacity in a compressor
compnsmg:
calculating an output capacity parameter with a control
program;
measuring at least one system operating parameter;
comparing the at least one measured system operating
parameter to corresponding predetermined threshold values for
the system operating parameter to determine whether the at
least one measured system operating parameter is within a
limiting region or an override region corresponding to the at
least one measured system operating parameter, wherein the at
least one measured system operating parameter is within the
limiting region when the at least one measured system
operating parameter exceeds a first threshold and does not
exceed a second threshold, greater than the first threshold, and
wherein the at least one measured system operating parameter
is within the override region when the at least one measured
system operating parameter exceeds the second threshold;
adjusting the output capacity parameter in response to a
determination that the at least one measured system operating
parameter is within the limiting region or the override region;
limiting the output capacity parameter to a predetermined
amount of increase in response to the at least one measured
system operating parameter being in the limiting region;
setting the output capacity parameter to a predetermined
amount of decrease in response to the at least one measured
system operating parameter being in the override region;
calculating a minimum variable speed drive frequency
for the compressor to avoid surge conditions;
comparing the calculated minimum variable speed drive
frequency to a variable speed drive frequency based on the
output capacity parameter;
modifying the output capacity parameter in response to
the minimum variable speed drive frequency being greater than
the variable speed drive frequency based on the output capacity
parameter; and
2
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
applying the output capacity parameter to the compressor
to adjust the output capacity of the compressor.
12. A system comprising:
a compressor, a condenser, an expansion device and an
evaporator connected in a closed refrigerant circuit;
a motor connected to the compressor to power the
compressor;
a variable speed drive connected to the motor to power
the motor, the variable speed drive being operable to provide a
variable voltage to the motor and a variable frequency to the
motor;
a control panel to control operation of the variable speed
drive and one or more components of the system, the control
panel comprising a microprocessor and a memory device;
a sensor to measure an operational parameter of the
system, the sensor being in communication with the control
panel to provide the measured operational parameter; and
the control panel being operable to execute a control
algorithm to determine and apply an output capacity adjustment
to the compressor, the output capacity adjustment being an
output capacity parameter from a capacity control program
modified by an output limiter or override determined from the
measured operational parameter of the system and to maintain a
minimum variable speed drive frequency to avoid surge
conditions.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Kountz (US 4,608,833, iss. Sept. 2, 1986).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kountz and Sommer (US 2011/0048046 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2011).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kountz and Takahata (US 5,477,696, iss. Dec. 26, 1995).
3
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Bodell (US 2008/0253877 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2008) and Kountz.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bodell, Kountz, and Takahata.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6--9 As Anticipated by Kountz
The Examiner finds that Kountz discloses a method of controlling the
capacity in a compressor, as recited in independent claim 1, by limiting the
output capacity parameter to a predetermined amount of increase in response
to at least one measured system operating parameter being in the limiting
region and setting the output capacity parameter to a predetermined amount
of decrease in response to the at least one measured system operating
parameter being in the override region. Final Act. 2 ( citing Kountz, Fig. 2).
The Examiner finds that Kountz discloses a limiting region as measured
system operating parameter point "g" to point "f' or P2 and an overriding
region between point "g" and point "i" or Pi. Id. at 3--4; Ans. 13-14.
Appellant argues that Kountz does not compare a measured system
operating parameter to a threshold value to determine if the parameter is in
the limiting region or override region. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant argues
that Kountz does not limit the output capacity parameter to a predetermined
amount of increase in the limiting region but instead teaches that compressor
speed may decrease between points "g" and "f' in a "learning mode" until a
surge condition is detected and does not limit the increase in compressor
speed to a predetermined amount of 0.5 Hz for a safety margin. Id. at 13;
Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant also argues that the speed of the compressor could
increase to any value above the safety margin. Reply Br. 6.
4
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Kountz compares at least one measured system operating parameter to a
corresponding threshold value for that parameter to determine whether the at
least one measured system operating parameter is within the limiting region
or an override region as recited in claim 1. The Examiner cites to Figure 2
of Kountz, which graphs different power levels such as P1, P2, P3, P4, Pi. See
Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Kountz measures motor current
as an operational parameter. Ans. 13. In addition, the Examiner cites to
column 5, line 66 to column 6, line 55 for this feature. Final Act. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that Kountz measures system operating
parameters that correspond to some of the system operating parameters that
Appellant discloses for its capacity control system. In this regard, Kountz
discloses that input signals are received for condenser pressure, transducer
pressure, current flowing through windings of induction motor 36, actual
motor speed, pre-rotational vane settings, loads, and temperature set points.
Kountz, 5: 1-51. Appellant discloses similar measured system operating
parameters as refrigerant pressures in evaporator 3 8 and condenser 3 5, input
and output current from the variable speed drive, variable geometry diffuser
position, and chiller temperature. Spec. ,r 34.
However, Appellant discloses that such measured system operating
parameters are compared to limit and override thresholds to avoid a system
shut down. Id. ,r 37. When a limit or override threshold is approached, the
capacity control program can proportionally limit the amount of capacity
increase permitted. Id. The Examiner has not explained where Kountz
discloses such a comparison of a measured parameter to a threshold value to
determine if the parameter is within a limiting or override region as claimed.
5
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
Instead, Kountz determines an initial surge surface array from various
input signals prior to initiating a "learning mode." Kountz, 6:8-14. Then,
Kountz starts the learning mode and incrementally lowers compressor speed
by about 0.1 Hz. Id. at 6: 15-18. "This process is continually repeated along
point 'c', 'd', 'e', and 'f' until a surge is detected at the point 'f'." Id. at
6:22-24. At this point, Kountz sets a safety margin away from point "f' by
increasing speed by 0.5 Hz to point "g" in Figure 2. Id. at 6:45-50.
The Examiner finds that the limiting region extends from point "f'
where "surge" is detected to a safety margin compressor speed at point "g".
See Final Act. 3; Ans. 13-14. The Examiner finds that the override region
extends from point "g" to point "i". Ans. 13-14. The Examiner does not
explain how Kountz compares a measured system operating parameter to a
predetermined threshold value for that parameter to determine whether that
parameter is within a limiting or override region as claimed, however. Id.
Even if points "f', "g", and "i" are considered first, second, and third
thresholds (see Ans. 13-14), the Examiner does not explain where Kountz
compares these thresholds to a measured system operational parameter to
determine if the parameter is in the limiting or override regions as claimed.
Id. The Examiner has not explained how detecting a "surge" at point "f',
setting a safety margin "g", or decreasing speed from point "i" results in a
comparison of a measured system operational parameter (pressure, current,
motor speed, vane settings, power) to any of the thresholds to determine if a
parameter is within a region. Id.; Final Act. 3. Instead, Kountz sets these
"regions" by incrementally adjusting compressor speed, and the "thresholds"
represent incremental adjustments to compressor speed. Kountz, 6: 15-55.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9.
6
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
Claims 5, 10, and 11
As Unpatentable Over Kountz and Sommer/Takahata
The Examiner's reliance on Sommer and Takahata to teach features
recited in dependent claims 5, 10, and 11 (Ans. 16-17) does not overcome
the deficiencies of Kountz noted above with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br.
17-18. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 10, and 11.
Claims 12-19 As Unpatentable Over Bodell and Kountz
Appellant argues claims 12-19 as a group. Appeal Br. 19-20. We
select claim 12 as representative, with claims 13-19 standing or falling with
claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner relies on Bodell to
teach a compressor, motor, control panel, and sensor, and Kountz to teach a
capacity control system as recited in claim 12. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 18.
Appellant argues that Kountz teaches adjusting compressor speed to set a
safety margin of 0.5 Hz to point "g" in Figure 2 during a learning mode, and
this value appears to be an arbitrary value that is not determined from a
measured operational parameter as claimed. Appeal Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 9.
We agree with the Examiner that Kountz controls compressor speed
based on measured operational parameters that are used to determine a surge
condition and then modifies an output limiter determined from the measured
parameters that indicate a surge condition exists by setting a safety margin at
"g" to maintain a minimum variable speed drive frequency to avoid surge as
discussed above. See Kountz, 3: 1-7, 5: 1-7: 15, Fig. 2. The output limiter or
override is determined from measured operational parameter( s) indicative of
whether a surge exists. If a surge is detected, compressor speed is limited by
0.5 Hz safety margin at point "g". Id. at 6:45-50.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 12-19.
7
Appeal2019-001118
Application 14/389,488
Claim 20 As Unpatentable over Bodell, Kountz, and Takahata
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Takahata to teach
features recited in claim 20 does not cure deficiencies of Bodell and Kountz
as to claim 12 from which claim 20 depends. Appeal Br. 21. Because we
sustain the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Bodell and Kountz as
discussed above, there are no deficiencies for Takahata to cure in this regard,
and we also sustain the rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 12-20, and we reverse the
rejections of 1 and 3-11.
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-IN-PART
8