Ex Parte Donnat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13002217 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
13/002,217 12/30/2010 Gilles Donnat PA-0003626-US 7962
87059 7590 08/24/2017
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
08/24/2017 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 GILLES DONNAT,
SUBBARAO VARIGONDA, and STEVO MIJANOVIC
Appeal 2016-001716
Application 13/002,217
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Action
rejecting claims 1, 4—15, and 18—28. Br. 1. Claim 2, 3, 16, and 17 have
been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-001716
Application 13/002,217
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants claim a transportable refrigeration system that controls an
inverter to provide power to the compressor. Spec. 1,4.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A control apparatus for a transport refrigeration system of
the type having a generator driven by an engine with the
generated electrical power being supplied to a compressor of a
closed loop vapor compression system for refrigerating a box
the control apparatus comprising:
a temperature sensor for sensing the discharge
temperature of the compressor and generating a temperature
signal representative thereof;
a first pressure sensor for sensing the suction pressure of
the compressor and generating a suction pressure signal
representative thereof;
a second pressure sensor for sensing the discharge
pressure of the compressor and generating a discharge pressure
signal representative thereof;
a return air temperature sensor for sensing the
temperature of air being returned from said box and generating
a return air temperature signal representative thereof;
a microprocessor for receiving said temperature signal,
said suction pressure signal, said discharge pressure signal and
said return air temperature signal and generating an inverter
control signal in response thereto; and
an inverter for receiving said inverter control signal from
said microprocessor and for receiving electrical power from the
generator and for providing a level of electrical power to the
compressor in response to said inverter control signal.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4—6, 11—15, 18—20, and 25—28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 6,688,125 B2,
iss. Feb. 10, 2004), Freund (US 6,718,781 B2, iss. Apr. 13, 2004), and
Truckenbrod (US 4,663,725, iss. May 5, 1987).
2
Appeal 2016-001716
Application 13/002,217
Claims 7—10 and 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Okamoto, Freund, and Truckenbrod, and further in
view of Lifson (US 2007/0022765 Al, pub. Feb. 1, 2007) and Mills, Jr. (US
6,131,402, iss. Oct. 17, 2000) (“Mills”).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4—6, 11—15, 18—20, and 25—28 as
unpatentable over Okamoto, Freund, and Truckenbrod
Appellants argue claims 1, 4—6, and 11—14 as one group and claims
15, 18—20, and 25—28 as another group. Br. 3—9. We select claims 1 and 15
as representative claims, with claims 4—6, and 11—14 standing or falling with
claim 1, and claims 18—20 and 25—28 standing or falling with claim 15.
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims L 4—6, and 11—14
The Examiner found that Okamoto teaches a system that sends a
signal to a microprocessor and generates an inverter control signal but does
not sense the discharge temperature of the compressor or the suction and
discharge pressures of the compressor as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2—3.
The Examiner found that Freund senses these parameters and determined it
would have been obvious to sense these features in Okamoto to prevent the
compressor from overheating, as Freund teaches. Id. at 2—4. The Examiner
relied on Truckenbrod to teach sensing a temperature of air returning from
the refrigerated box and determined it would have been obvious to include
this feature in Okamoto to improve the operation of the refrigeration system.
Id. at 4—5. The Examiner found that Okamoto controls a compressor with an
inverter and microprocessor using a sensed parameter, and Truckenbrod and
Freund control a compressor using similar, sensed parameters. Ans. 14—15.
3
Appeal 2016-001716
Application 13/002,217
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires the measured values to be used
to generate an inverter control signal and this feature is not disclosed by the
combination of Okamoto, Freund, and Truckenbrod. Br. 4. Appellants also
argue that Freund uses the sensed discharge temperature, suction pressure,
and discharge pressure of the compressor to control refrigerant flow through
an expansion valve but does not generate an inverter control signal to control
a level of electrical power to the compressor. Id. at 4—5. Appellants further
argue that Truckenbrod does not disclose using the return air temperature to
generate an inverter control signal to control a level of electrical power to
the compressor. Id. at 5. Appellants also argue that there is no rationale for
modifying Okamoto to use the other claimed sensed parameters to generate
an inverter control signal. Id. at 6.
Appellants’ arguments that Freund and Truckenbrod fail to teach the
generation of an inverter control signal to control the electrical power to the
compressor are not persuasive because the Examiner relied on Okamoto to
teach these features. See In re Merck &Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually when a rejection is based on their combined teachings).
Appellants’ argument that there is no rationale to modify Okamoto is
not persuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s stated reasons for
modifying Okamoto. Freund controls compressor operation using a sensed
compressor discharge temperature (To) to prevent the compressor from
overheating, as the Examiner found. Final Act. 3^4; see Freund, 8:25—9:6.
Freund controls compressor operation using a sensed discharge pressure (P/>)
and a sensed suction pressure (P.v) of the compressor to prevent a compressor
from exceeding the horsepower output limit of the engine. Id. at 9:10—18.
4
Appeal 2016-001716
Application 13/002,217
Truckenbrod teaches the use of microprocessors to improve operation
of transport refrigeration systems. Truckenbrod, 1:10—15. Truckenbrod
teaches that the operation of such systems is improved using a temperature
loop control operation based on return air and discharge air temperature
sensors 56, 58, as the Examiner found. Id. at 5:45—65; see Final Act. 4—5.
We agree with the Examiner that these teachings of Truckenbrod and
Freund provide motivation and rational underpinnings to modify the system
of Okamoto to include such features to improve operations, as the Examiner
has done. Appellants’ argument that there is no rationale (Br. 6) does not
address the Examiner’s stated reasoning nor does it apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or determination of obviousness.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4—6, and 11—14.
Claims 15, 18—20, and 25—28
Independent claim 15 recites a method of controlling a refrigeration
system with similar features as claim 1. The Examiner relies on the same
findings and determination of obviousness as for claim 1. See Final Act. 2—
5. Appellants present similar arguments for claim 15 as for claim 1. Cf. Br.
3—6 with id. at 6—9. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons
discussed above for claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 15,
18-20, and 25-28.
Claims 7—10 and 21—24 as unpatentable over
Okamoto, Freund, Truckenbrod, Lifson, and Mills
Claims 7—10 and 21—24 depend, respectively, from claims 1 and 15.
Appellants’ argument that these claims are patentable for the same reasons
as claims 1 and 15 (Br. 9) is not persuasive where we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 15. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 7—10 and 21—24.
5
Appeal 2016-001716
Application 13/002,217
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 4—15, and 18—28.
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
6