Ex Parte Feuerecker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12035648 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
12/035,648 02/22/2008 Gunther Feuerecker 016906-0649 1397
60601 7590 03/20/2017
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
ZEC, FILIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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 GUNTHER FEUERECKER, KARL LOCHMAHR,
FRANK MULLER, DIRK NEUMEISTER, THOMAS STRAUSS,
MARCUS WEINBRENNER, RICHARD OBRADOVICH,
GUNNAR SCHLINKE, and CHRISTOPHE SCHMITTHEISLER
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gunther Feuerecker et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 11, 12, 14—17, 19—
25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harte (US
6,640,889 Bl, issued Nov. 4, 2003), Hasebe (US 6,467,286 B2, issued Oct.
22, 2002), and Feuerecker (US 2005/0224221 Al, published Oct. 13, 2005).1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 2—10, 13, 18, and 26 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. An air-conditioning system for a vehicle driven by a
motor, comprising:
a refrigerant circuit configured to allow a flow of a
refrigerant through at least a portion of the refrigerant circuit,
wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises a first refrigerant
branch and a second refrigerant branch, configured in parallel;
a coolant circuit configured to allow a flow of a coolant
through at least a portion of the coolant circuit;
a coolant cooler configured to act as a heat exchanger
between (a) the coolant in the coolant circuit and (b) ambient air;
at least one valve that controls the flow of the refrigerant
between the first refrigerant branch and the second refrigerant
branch;
a heat pump heat exchanger that is in both the coolant
circuit and the first branch of the refrigerant circuit, wherein the
heat pump heat exchanger is configured to act as a heat
exchanger between (a) a portion of the refrigerant that is in the
first branch of the refrigerant circuit and (b) the coolant in the
coolant circuit;
a refrigerant cooler that is in the second branch of the
refrigerant circuit, wherein the refrigerant cooler is arranged
adjacent to the coolant cooler and is configured to act as a heat
exchanger between (a) a portion of the refrigerant that is in the
second branch of the refrigerant circuit and (b) ambient air; and
a heater that is in the first refrigerant branch, wherein the
heater is configured to heat air provided to a vehicle interior
space,
wherein the coolant cooler is in the coolant circuit and is
connected in series downstream of the heat pump heat exchanger.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14^17
Independent claim 1 recites an air-conditioning system for a vehicle
comprising, inter alia, “a heater that is in the first refrigerant branch,
wherein the heater is configured to heat air provided to a vehicle interior
space.” The Examiner finds that Harte does not disclose the claimed heater.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Feuerecker teaches an air conditioner
for a motor vehicle, comprising heater 11 located in a first refrigerant branch
(denoted by valve SV1) and configured to heat air provided to a vehicle
interior space. Id. (citing Feuerecker 134, Fig. 1). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Harte to add a heater, as taught by
Feuerecker, “in order to heat air supplied to the passenger cabin.” Id.
Appellants point out that Harte’s heating and cooling system has three
distinct modes of operation; namely, a cooling mode, a heat pump mode, and
a conventional heating mode. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Harte, col. 4,11. 7—8 and
53, col. 5,11. 37—38). Figure 3 depicts the flow of refrigerant and coolant
during the heat pump mode. Harte, col. 4,11. 53—55. In second coolant loop
61, coolant and refrigerant heated by the coolant in first coolant loop 62
flows into second coolant/reffigerant heat exchanger 70, where heat is
transferred from the refrigerant to the coolant. Id. at 7—8; Harte, col. 5,11.
23—29, Fig. 3. The heated coolant flows to heater core 44 in passenger
compartment 24, and air is forced through heater core 44 to warm the air
before it flows into passenger compartment 24. Harte, col. 5,11. 29-36, Fig.
3.
Figure 2 of Harte depicts the flow of refrigerant and coolant during
the cooling mode. Harte, col. 4,11. 7—10. As shown, coolant in first coolant
3
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
loop 62 flows into heater core 44. Id. at col. 4,11. 36—39. Air entering
passenger compartment 24 does not pass over heater core 44, and, thus, the
coolant has a negligible effect on the temperature of the air flowing into
passenger compartment 24. Id. at col. 4,11. 42-46.
Lastly, in the conventional heating mode, compressor 76 does not
operate and refrigerant is not flowed in the refrigerant loop. Harte, col. 5,
40-41, Fig. 2. The coolant in the first coolant loop 62 flows the same as in
the cooling mode, and air passes through heater core 44 and is warmed
before entering passenger compartment 24. Id. at col. 5,11. 43—47, Fig. 2.
Appellants note correctly that Harte already includes heater core 44 in
second coolant loop 61. Appeal Br. 11; see Harte, Figs. 2, 3. Appellants
contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated
to combine Feuerecker with Harte to include a second heater in refrigerant
loop 60. Id. at 12.
Regarding rationale to modify Harte in view of Feurecker, the
Examiner states that “the heater core 44 in Harte is used for a different
purpose (cooling the [engine] coolant via outside air) and heater 11 of
Feuerecker is used to heat the air delivered to the passenger cabin.” Adv.
Act. 2. Appellants respond, however, that Harte discloses that the heated
coolant flows to heater core 44, and air is forced through heater core 44 to
warm the air before it flows into passenger compartment 24. Appeal Br. 12—
13; Harte, col. 5,11. 29-36, Fig. 3. As such, heater core 44 is, like
Feuerecker’s heater 11, used to heat the air delivered to the passenger cabin.
We agree with Appellants that, in Harte’s heat pump mode and heater mode,
Harte’s heater core 44 and Feuerecker’s heater 11 are used for the same
purpose.
4
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
The Examiner responds that Feuerecker is relied on to teach a heater
in a refrigerant branch “comprising many similar elements as the first
refrigerant branch as claimed.” Ans. 9. Even assuming Feuerecker provides
this teaching, it does not by itself provide an adequate reason to modify
Harte. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
The Examiner also indicates that Harte teaches that air entering
passenger compartment 24 will not pass over heater core 44 in the cooling
mode. Ans. 10 (citing Harte, col. 4,11. 36—52). The Examiner states that
“[w]hen combined with Harte in the traditional air conditioning mode, and
not the heat pump mode, said heat [produced by Feurecker’s heater] does
increase the capacity of Harte and it improves the overall efficiency of the
system.” Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner also states that “in the
conventional air conditioning mode, the combination of Feuerecker and
Harte would indeed provide higher capacity of the system, when heating of
the passenger cabin is required.'1'’ Id. (emphasis added).
Based on these statements, we understand that the Examiner proposes
to somehow combine Harte’s system with Feurecker’s heater 11 only in the
traditional air conditioning mode. However, the Examiner does not explain
adequately, and, it is also not apparent, how this modification of Harte,
which is “not [in] the heat pump mode,” would be made, or why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Harte and
Feurerecker to achieve this result. Harte’s system is designed to provide two
distinct heating modes in addition to the air conditioning mode. Harte’s
5
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
system already includes heater core 44 to enable heating of passenger
compartment 24 in the heat pump mode and heating mode. See also Harte,
col. 5,11. 43—47. There is no indication that heater core 44 is inadequate for
these modes. Accordingly, the Examiner provides no apparent reason to add
Feurecker’s heater to Harte’s refrigerant loop for use in either of these two
heating modes, where the added heater would appear to provide no useful
purpose. As Appellants contend, one of ordinary skill does not arbitrarily
add additional components to an air conditioning system, because such
additions increase weight and cost, and reduce efficiency. Reply Br. 7.
Additionally, the Examiner does not explain adequately why it would
be desirable to add Feurecker’s heater to Harte’s refrigerant loop for use in
Harte’s conventional cooling mode. Appellants note correctly that heating
of the passenger cabin is not required in the cooling (air conditioning) mode
of Harte. Reply Br. 8. Harte’s system is designed so that air entering
passenger compartment 24 does not pass over heater core 44 such that the
coolant in heater core 44 has a negligible effect on the temperature of the air
flowing into passenger compartment 24. Harte, col. 4,11. 42^46. Harte’s
system is designed so that this air is minimally heated during cooling of
passenger compartment 24. Despite this, the Examiner does not explain
why, in the conventional air conditioning mode of Harte, “heating of the
passenger cabin is required.” Ans. 10. Appellants, in contrast, contend that,
by definition, heating of the passenger cabin is not required in this mode.
Reply Br. 8. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to provide an
adequate reason with a rational underpinning why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have added Feurecker’s heater to Harte, and, specifically in a
6
Appeal 2014-005239
Application 12/035,648
specific branch of a refrigerant circuit, as claimed, to provide such heating in
the conventional air conditioning mode.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 11, 12, and 14—17 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Harte,
Hasebe, and Feuerecker.
Claims 19 and 20
Independent claims 19 and 20 each recite a method for operating an
air-conditioning system, wherein the air-conditioning system comprises,
inter alia, a heater having the same limitations as recited in claim 1. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Harte,
Hasebe, and Feuerecker for reasons similar to those discussed for claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 11, 12, 14—17, 19-25,
and 27 is reversed.
REVERSED
7