Ex Parte Engelhardt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

12943128 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
12/943,128 11/10/2010 MAREK ENGELHARDT CON-2008-098 3069
24131 7590 10/02/2017
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
HAMO, PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket @ paten tusa. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAREK ENGELHARDT
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,1281
Technology Center 3700
Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marek Engelhardt (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—10.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Continental
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 1 (filing entered Nov. 4, 2014).
2 Claims 11 and 12 are allowed. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,128
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of controlling the operation
of a compressor in which the controller, utilizing an estimated temperature
value as a state variable, calculates a cooling function that represents the
course over time of the cooling of the compressor after the compressor has
been switched off. Spec., para. 2.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed invention. Emphasis is added to highlight the specific limitations at
the center of this dispute.
1. A method of controlling an operation of a compressor, the
method to be executed by a controller connected to the
compressor, the method which comprises:
with the controller, determining at least a first estimated
temperature value associated with a first location on the
compressor as a first state variable and a second estimated
temperature value associated with a second location on the
compressor as a second state variable, the second location being
disposed at a spacing distance from the first location, and
determining a temperature difference between the first estimated
temperature value and the second estimated temperature value;
with the controller, calculating a cooling function of the
compressor on a basis of the temperature difference, the cooling
function representing a course over time of a cooling of the
compressor after the compressor has been switched off; and
with the controller, utilizing the cooling function to
determine whether or not the compressor may be switched back
on.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,128
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sorge (US 2007/0098564 Al, pub.
May 3, 2007).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorge and Steurer (US 5,584,675, iss.
Dec. 17, 1996).
III. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorge and Meier (US 2002/0187048 Al, pub.
Dec. 12, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Anticipation
For rejection I, the Examiner finds Sorge discloses all of the steps
independent claim 1 recites. Final Act. 2—3. Appellant asserts the Examiner
misapprehends Sorge’s teachings because it fails to disclose calculating a
cooling function of the compressor on a basis of the temperature difference
between the first estimated temperature value and the second estimated
temperature value, as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 4—7. Appellant’s
challenge is persuasive for the following reasons.
Appellant argues “Sorge does not teach that the cooling function
A(Tc) of the compressor is calculated on a basis of the temperature
difference between the alleged first estimated temperature value Ts (Tc) and
the alleged second estimated temperature value T°°.” Id. at 5. Instead,
according to Appellant, “Sorge teaches that the cooling function A(Tc) is
actually calculated as a function of the characteristic temperatures Tcm of
3
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,128
the last time clock.” Id. As support, Appellant notes Sorge’s equation 1,
which is specifically identified for use when the compressor is switched off
(as required by claim 1), clearly shows relative temperature Tci “is solely a
function of the prior value of the relative temperature Tcm and the cooling
function A(Tc).” Id. (citing Sorge, para. 48). Relative temperature Tcm of
the last time clock is “the thermal state of the compressor at the time of the
last time clock.” Id. (citing Sorge, para. 24). Similarly, Sorge also teaches
the current value of the cooling function A(Tc) is calculated “by using the
characteristic temperatures of the last time clock.” Sorge, para. 37.
The “Examiner agrees that Sorge teaches that the cooling function
A(Tc) is calculated as a function of the characteristic temperature Tcm of the
last time clock.” Ans. 6. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Tcm is
dependent on the temperature difference between Ts and Tinfmity.3 Id. at 6—7.
To find this dependence, the Examiner offers the following rationale:
Tcm, the characteristic temperature of the last time clock, is
dependent on Tc,_2 calculated at the time clock before that in an
ongoing process (see equation (1), para. [0048]), that ultimately
leads back to the original estimated temperature Tinfinity (the
initial relative temperature Tc is zero as Ts is initially estimated
to be the same as Tinfmity, see para. [0020] - [0021].. . Therefore,
at the beginning of the process, when Ts and Tinfmity are initialized
to be equal, Tc is initialized to be the relative temperature
difference between the two, or zero. As Ts changes as the
compressor cools after shut off, the cooling function based on Tc
at the previous time clock determines the changing estimate for
Ts. As shown in equation (3), Tci (the value of Tc at any given
time i) is proportional to the difference in temperature between
Ts and T^infinity.
3 Ts is the estimated temperature, which is also referred to as Ts(Tc). See
Sorge, paras. 47, 50. Tinfmity is the ambient temperature at the installation
location of the compressor. Id. para. 20.
4
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,128
Id. at 7. Thus, the Examiner’s anticipation determination depends on T^ity
being characterized properly as a second estimated temperature value that is
associated with a second location on the compressor at a spacing distance
from the first location. See also id. at 3.
Appellant argues, “Tmfmity is a measured or estimated temperature
surrounding the compressor and not an estimated temperature at a location
on the compressor.” Reply Br. 5. Pointing to paragraph 20, the Examiner
finds, “Sorge teaches that a convenient estimate to be made is that the
temperature at a location on the compressor is the same as ambient
temperature.” Final Act. 5. Paragraph 20 reads:
When the control method has started, the initial value of the
relative temperatures Tc should be chosen such that the estimated
temperature Ts(Tc) of the compressor corresponds to the value
of the ambient temperature Too at the installation location of the
compressor.
Sorge, para. 20. We do not find this evidence sufficient to establish that Too
is an estimated temperature value of a second location on the compressor,
which is also at a location separated by a distance from the first location on
the compressor for which the first estimated temperature value is
determined.
Because Sorge equates Too with the ambient temperature at the
location of the compressor, Sorge teaches Too is a temperature of the air
surrounding all locations on the compressor, rather than an estimated
temperature value at any one particular location on the compressor. See
Ambient Definition, Meriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/ambient (last visited on May 24, 2016) (“existing or
5
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,128
present on all sides”). The location of Too relative to any particular location
on the compressor is simply not specified by Sorge.
Although the Examiner may rely on what Sorge inherently discloses,
when a claim limitation is not expressly disclosed, the inherent result must
inevitably result from what Sorge does disclose rather than what is possible
or probable from that disclosure. See In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375,
1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169
F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Examiner offers no evidence or
technical reasoning supporting that Sorge’s teaching concerning Too
necessarily results in an estimated temperature value at a location on the
compressor that is at a distance from the first location on the compressor the
first estimated temperature value represents.
As a result, the Examiner’s determination that Sorge anticipates claim
1 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or claims 2—5, 7, 9, and 10
depending therefrom.
Rejections II and III— Obviousness
For rejections II and III, the Examiner’s use of the teachings of
Steurer and Meier, respectively, does not cure the above deficiencies with
the rejection of claim 1 (see supra Rejection I). Therefore, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 6 and 8 as unpatentable
for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
6
Appeal 2015-006905
Application 12/943,128
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10 are reversed.
REVERSED
7