Ex Parte Lifson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2017

13380786 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 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.
13/380,786 12/23/2011 Alexander Lifson PA-0002387-US-AA 4796
50811 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
08/09/2017 EXAMINER
MARTIN, ELIZABETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2017 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER LIFSON and MICHAEL F. TARAS
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alexander Lifson and Michael F. Taras (“Appellants”) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—9,
and 19.1,2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 20—27 have been withdrawn. Final Act. 1; Br. 3.
2 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Carrier Corporation, which is
a wholly owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to monitoring the performance and the
position of a refrigerant system. Spec. 12. Claims 1 and 19 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A system for monitoring a mobile refrigerant system
including one or more system components, comprising:
a global positioning system receiver that provides a
locator signal;
a performance monitor that provides a monitor signal
indicative of operational performance of at least one of the
system components of the refrigerant system, wherein the
monitor signal includes data indicative of at least one of
refrigerant pressure, refrigerant temperature, airflow humidity,
vibration, sound, operational speed, electrical voltage or
electrical frequency in at least one of the system components;
and
a processor that receives and combines the locator signal
and the monitor signal, and produces a combined locator and
monitor signal output;
wherein the refrigerant temperature is a temperature of
liquid refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant system.
REJECTION
Claims 1—5, 7—9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McCormack (GB 2 408 792 A, published June 8, 2005),
Kim (KR 10-2007-0016305, published Feb. 8, 2007), and Awwad (US
2010/0107661 Al, published May 6, 2010).
2
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
DISCUSSION
Claims 1—5 and 7—9
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1—5 and 7—9 as a group. Br.
8. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2—5 and 7—9 stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that McCormack discloses, inter alia, a GPS
receiver 23 that provides a locator signal, a performance monitor that
provides a monitor signal of a refrigerant system component, and a
processor that receives the locator signal and the monitor signal. Final Act.
3. The Examiner finds that McCormack does not disclose that the processor
produces a combined locator and monitor signal, and that the refrigerant
temperature is a temperature of liquid flowing through the refrigerant
system. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Kim teaches a processor 13
that produces a combined locator and monitor signal output, and that
Awwad teaches that the refrigerant temperature is a temperature of liquid
flowing through the refrigerant system. Id. at 7—A. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify the processor of McCormack to
produce a combined locator and monitor signal output “to control the
temperature of the inside of refrigerator in order to reduce the transport cost
under this system,” and that it would have been obvious to include Awwad’s
teaching of the refrigerant temperature is a temperature of liquid flowing
through the refrigerant system “to prevent deteriorating performance of the
refrigeration system.” Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that McCormack and Kim relate to systems for
monitoring air temperature and/or product temperature and do not transmit
information indicative of a refrigeration system parameter such as refrigerant
3
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
temperature. Br. 8. Appellants contend that Awwad does not transmit
information because Awwad’s temperature sensors 41 and 72 internally
control its systems operations. According to Appellants, there is no
motivation to send data from Awwad’s sensors 41 and 72 because
“McCormack is directed towards monitoring air / product temperature, not
performance of the refrigeration system.” Id.
The Examiner responds that because
both McCormack and Kim teach monitoring and transmitting
operating temperatures and the operation of the refrigerator . . .
the operating temperatures monitored by the probes of
McCormack and sensors of Kim could include signals of the
refrigerant temperatures monitored by [Awwad’s] sensors 41 and
72 to prevent deteriorating performance of the refrigeration
system and to control the temperature of the inside of refrigerator
in order to reduce the transport cost under this system.
Ans. 6—7.
The Examiner states that the combination of references is not based
on bodily incorporation, but, rather, is based on what the combination of
references reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill. Id. at 7.
For the following reasons, we agree with the Examiner that because
the probes of McCormack and sensors of Kim monitor operating
temperatures, it would have been obvious to monitor additional signals
including the refrigerant temperatures as monitored by Awwad, to ensure
that the performance of the refrigeration system does not deteriorate.
McCormack discloses that “[a]ny untoward event relating to temperature is
signalled through the data communication unit back to base.” McCormack
5,11. 20-21. Further, Appellants do not dispute that Awwad discloses that
the refrigerant temperature is a temperature of liquid flowing through the
refrigerant system, as the Examiner finds. Using Awwad’s sensor to
4
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
indicate a temperature of liquid refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant
system of McCormack would, as the Examiner suggests, prevent
deteriorating performance of the refrigeration system by signaling this data
back to base. Appellants do not assert that the proposed modification would
have been beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Absent such an assertion, the Examiner may “take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,”
and find a person of ordinary skill in the art would overcome those
difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Appellants, thus, fail to
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or rationale, quoted
above, for the combination of McCormack, Kim, and Awwad, which we
determine to be reasonable and supported by a rational underpinning. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”)
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over McCormack, Kim, and Awwad. Claims 2—5 and 7—9 fall with claim 1.
Claim 19
Appellants assert that the Examiner fails “to have considered claim 19
as presented.” Br. 9. Appellants argue the rejection of claim 19 is based on
the phrase “refrigerant temperature” recited in claim 1, but that claim 19
does not recite “refrigerant temperature.” Id. Appellants argue that “the
combined teachings of McCormack, Kim and Awwad does not teach or
5
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
suggest. . . wherein the monitor signal includes data indicative of
refriserant pressure, airflow humidity, vibration, sound, operational speed,
electrical voltage and/or electrical frequency in at least one of the system
components ... as recited in claim 19.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “Awwad teaches that pressure sensor 43
monitors the pressure of refrigerant at the outlet of the evaporator 40.” Ans.
9. The Examiner states that “the probes of McCormack and sensors of Kim
could include signals of the refrigerant pressure monitored by [Awwad’s]
sensor 43,” because this feature is not bodily incorporated into McCormack.
Id.
The Examiner refers to Awwad’s temperature sensor 41 and pressure
sensor 43, both of which are disclosed in paragraph 19 of Awwad. See Ans.
6, 7, 9; see also Awwad 119. Appellants do not dispute that Awwad teaches
pressure sensor 43 that monitors pressure of refrigerant at the outlet of
evaporator 40, as the Examiner finds. Similar to Awwad’s temperature
sensor discussed supra, employing Awwad’s pressure sensor would, as the
Examiner suggests, provide an additional signal to those signals already
monitored by McCormack to prevent deteriorating performance of the
refrigeration system by signaling pressure data back to base. See Ans. 9. As
discussed above in connection with claim 1, Appellants do not assert that the
proposed modification would have been beyond the capabilities of a person
of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over
McCormack, Kim, and Awwad.
6
Appeal 2016-005673
Application 13/380,786
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—9, and 19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7