Ex Parte Kondo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14002608 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/002,608 08/30/2013 Y oshiyuki Kondo
38834 7590 06/27/2018
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
8500 Leesburg Pike
SUITE 7500
Tysons, VA 22182
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
P23720USOO 2954
EXAMINER
ROJOHN III, CLAIRE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIYUKI KONDO, HIROMITSU NAGA Y ASU,
TAKASHI KAMIJO, and OSAMU MIYAMOTO
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, which is the sole pending claim.
Final Office Action (June 28, 2016) (hereinafter "Final Act."). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Y oshiyuki Kondo et al. ("Appellants") identify the real party in interest as
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Appeal Brief (November 30, 2016)
(hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 2.
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
The claimed subject matter relates to "a large-sized reboiler (heat
exchanger)." Specification (August 30, 2013) (hereinafter "Spec."), i-f 1.
The Specification explains that in a reboiler, in which liquid is supplied from
a lower part and vaporized gas is discharged from an upper part, vaporized
gas forms a gas lid that hinders the recovery of gas. Id. i-f 4. The
Specification describes a large-sized reboiler that employs a ring-shaped
void between the heat transfer tube group and a shell to prevent the
formation of this gas lid and achieve space saving and reduction in plant
cost. Id. i-fi-14, 10.
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over the prior art. For the
reasons explained below, Appellants have demonstrated error in this ground
of rejection. Accordingly, we REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A large-sized reboiler comprising:
a vessel into which a liquid is supplied from a
lower part and a vaporized gas is discharged from an
upper part; and
a heat transfer tube group arranged in such a
manner that a void penetrating in an up-and-down
direction is formed in the vessel,
wherein a maximum length of a cross-sectional
figure in a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the
up-and-down direction exceeds 2m, and the void
occupies 5 to 10% of an area of the cross-sectional
figure, and
wherein the void penetrates in the up-and-down
direction within the heat transfer tube group and the void
exists between the periphery of an inner wall in the
2
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
up-and-down direction of the vessel and the heat transfer
tube group so as to be ring-shaped.
Reply Brief (April 3, 2017) (hereinafter "Reply Br."), Appendix A, at 5. 2
REJECTION
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claim 1 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shirakata et al.
(US 6,497,115 Bl, issued December 24, 2002) and either Braun
(US 1,562,682, issued November 24, 1925) or Iritani et al. (US 7,028,762
B2, issued April 18, 2006).
ISSUES
The Examiner found that Shirakata discloses a large-size reboiler
comprising a vessel (14 ), into which a liquid is supplied from a lower part
and a vaporized gas is discharged from an upper part, a heat transfer tube
group (15) arranged such that a void penetrates in an up-and-down direction,
and wherein the void exists between the periphery of an inner wall of the
vessel and the heat transfer tube group. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
stated that Shirakata does not disclose the void between the inner wall and
the tube group is ring-shaped. Id. at 4. The Examiner found that both Braun
and Iritani teach a ring-shaped void. Id. (citing Braun, Fig. 2, and Iritani,
Figs. 2-7). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
modify Shirakata's reboiler to add heat exchange tubes to the upper portion
of vessel 14 resulting in a ring-shaped void, "to add more surface area for
2 We refer in this Decision to the version of claim 1 provided in the
Appendix to the Reply Brief, because according to Appellants, the version of
claim 1 provided in the Appendix to the Appeal Brief is incorrect. Reply
Br. 2.
3
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
heat transfer and insure a maximum absorption with simple construction
(Braun: Col. 1, lines 48-56) and to improve the condensation performance
of the condenser by promoting the supply of the gaseous between the tube
groups (Iritani: Col. 4, lines 1--4)." Id. at 4. Alternatively, the Examiner
found that Shirakata discloses placing tubes in the upper portion of
vessel 14. Id. at 6 (citing Shirakata, col. 2, 11. 46-54 and col. 4, 11. 44-52).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in proposing to modify
Shirakata with the tube arrangements of either Braun or Iritani because the
use of a ring-shaped void would frustrate the intended functioning of the
Shirakata evaporator system. Appeal Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2. In support of
this argument, Appellants point to a Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of
Yoichiro Iritani ("Iritani Dec.") discussing the Shirakata patent, on which
Mr. Iritani is a named inventor. Iritani Dec. i-f 1. Appellants further argue
the Examiner erred in finding that Shirakata discloses tubes in the upper
portion of vessel 14. Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3--4.
The issues before us are: (1) whether Shirakata teaches placing tubes
in the upper portion of vessel 14, and (2) whether the Examiner's stated
reason to modify Shirakata to add tubes in the upper portion of vessel 14 to
form a ring-shaped void, based on the teachings of either Braun or Iritani, is
supported by rational underpinnings.
ANALYSIS
As to the first issue, we disagree with the Examiner's reading of
Shirakata to disclose placing tubes in the upper portion of vessel 14.
Shirakata is directed to an evaporator for refrigerating a fluid to be
refrigerated and vaporizing a refrigerant by carrying out a heat exchange
between the fluid and the refrigerant. Shirakata, col. 1, 11. 57-60. The
4
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
evaporator 12 comprises plural heat-transfer pipes 15, in which the fluid
flows; the pipes 15 are provided in a container 14 into which the refrigerant
is introduced. Id. at col. 1, 11. 60-62, col. 3, 11. 50-53, Figs. 1-3. The heat-
transfer pipes 15 are divided into plural pipe groups, with an interval
between adjacent pipe groups. Id. at col. 1, 11. 62-64. In particular,
Shirakata describes that "heat-transfer pipes 15 are divided into nine groups
A to I in the lower part of the container 14" such that "groups A to E are
provided in parallel and groups F to I are provided in parallel below the
groups A to E." Id. at col. 3, 11. 62-67, Fig. 2. Shirakata describes that "the
pipe groups may be horizontally divided and the heat-transfer pipes provided
in the pipe groups on the upper level are not more densely (more loosely)
arranged than the heat-transfer pipes provided in the pipe groups on the
lower level." Id. at col. 2, 11. 41--45. Shirakata teaches that this arrangement
of pipe groups allows bubbles generated around the heat transfer pipes in the
lower part of the container to easily come to the surface through the intervals
between adjacent heat-transfer pipes of the pipe groups. Id. at col. 2, 11. 46-
54, col. 4, 11. 13-19. Notably, although Shirakata discloses an upper and a
lower level of pipe groups, Shirakata discloses that both pipe groups are
positioned in the lower portion of container 14. Id., Figs. 2, 4-9.
More specifically, contrary to the Examiner's finding, we do not
understand Shirakata's discussion of "pipe groups on the upper level"
(Shirakata, col. 2, 1. 47) to refer to pipe groups located in an upper portion of
container 14. Rather, we understand Shirakata's discussion of "pipe groups
on the upper level" to refer to pipe groups A to E, which are located above a
lower level of pipe groups F to I within lower portion of container 14, as
depicted in Shirakata's Figures 2 and 4. Similarly, we understand
5
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
Shirakata's discussion of the bubbles generated around the heat-transfer
pipes of the pipe groups positioned at the lower part of the container passing
through the pipe groups "positioned at the upper part of the container"
(Shirakata, col. 2, 11. 49-52) to contrast pipe groups F to I with pipe groups
A to E, all of which are positioned in the lower portion of container 14.
Shirakata further describes that the nine pipe groups A to I "may be
divided into smaller or larger numbers of pipe groups in line with the size of
the evaporator 12 and desired properties to be exhibited." Id. col. 4, 11. 44-
48. We understand this discussion in Shirakata to suggest the possibility of
using fewer than nine pipe groups or more than nine pipe groups. See, e.g.,
id. Fig. 5 (depicting twelve pipe groups). We do not read this portion of
Shirakata to disclose the use of pipe groups in the upper portion of
container 14.
As to the second issue, Appellants have successfully rebutted the
Examiner's reasoning for the proposed modification of Shirakata. Shirakata
discloses container 14 having an inlet at the bottom for receiving refrigerant
liquid and a vapor outlet at the top for providing refrigerant vapor to
compressor 13. Shirakata, Fig. 1, col. 1, 11. 3 6--49 (describing Figure 1 ). As
explained above, Shirakata describes that heat-transfer pipes 15 are disposed
in the lower part of container 14. Id. at col. 1, 11. 62-63, Fig. 2. The Iritani
Declaration explains that the upper half of container 14 in Shirakata contains
"a space for gravity separation of the liquid drops" and that this space "is
required to prevent the impellers in the compressor 13 from receiving liquid
drops from the evaporator 12" which can result in erosion or damages to the
impellers. Iritani Dec. i-f 2. Mr. Iritani is a named inventor in the Shirakata
patent (id. i-f 1) and presumably would have first-hand knowledge of the
6
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
reason for the absence of heat-transfer tubes in the upper portion of
container 14. We have no evidence in the record before us to question the
veracity of the statement provided in the declaration.
The Examiner finds that "adding tubes to the top portion [of
Shirakata] would aid in evaporating more liquid and therefore no liquid
would be allowed into the compressor and the space for returning liquid
from the compressor would not be needed." Ans. 5. We find insufficient
support in the evidence of record for the Examiner's finding that "no liquid
would be allowed into the compressor." The Examiner further finds that
"there is still space between the tubes for the liquid to fall." Id. Again, we
have insufficient support in the evidence of record to find that container 14,
as modified as proposed by the Examiner to include heat-transfer pipes 15 in
the upper portion of container 14, would provide sufficient space for
unevaporated liquid droplets near the container outlet to fall under the force
of gravity instead of being sucked into compressor 13. This is particularly
the case in light of the Figures of Shirakata, which show the entire upper
portion of container 14 devoid of heat-transfer tubes 15, and further in light
of the explanation provided in the Iritani Declaration.
Further, neither Braun nor Iritani supports the Examiner's finding that
"Braun and Iritani teach adding pipes to the upper portion of the heat
exchanger to prevent liquid from entering the compressor since there would
be more pipes and surface area to evaporate the liquid before entering the
compressor." Ans. 5. The cited portion of Iritani discloses heat-transfer
pipes 15 within an upper portion of container 14 of condenser 10, in which
refrigerant vapor enters the container from the top and, through heat
exchange between cooling water and the gaseous refrigerant, condenses and
7
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
liquefies the refrigerant. Iritani, col. 3, 11. 26--41, Figs. 1, 2. Iritani
separately discloses an evaporator, and the cited portion of Iritani is not
directed to a heat-transfer tube configuration of its evaporator 12. Similarly,
the cited portion of Braun is directed to a condenser, not an evaporator.
Braun, Title. Thus, neither Iritani nor Braun addresses the configuration of
tubes in an evaporator in which the vapor exiting the top of the container
enters a compressor.
The Examiner further interprets the "void" limitation of claim 1 to
encompass "any void space around a heat transfer tube or a void around the
bottom tube group since it would be ring shaped, in the up and down
direction and between the periphery of an inner wall and the tube group."
Ans. 5-6. We do not agree with the Examiner that the claim language can
be interpreted so broadly when read in light of the Specification. Among
other things, claim 1 requires that "the void exists between the periphery of
an inner wall in the up-and-down direction of the vessel and the heat transfer
tube group so as to be ring-shaped," and, consistent with the claim language,
the Specification discloses that in the embodiment of Figure 3, a ring-shaped
void is provided between the heat transfer tube group and a shell. Spec.
ii 10.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have rebutted the
Examiner's determination of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 1
over Shirakata and either Braun or Iritani. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal2017-007062
Application 14/002,608
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 1 is reversed.
REVERSED
9