Ex Parte Ng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2016

13501552 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/501,552 04/16/2012 SweeM.Ng
87059 7590 11/22/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
PA-0012565-US-AA 8967
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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 @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SWEEM. NG, MARTIN 0. JOHNSON, and
RAYMOND L. SENF JR.
Appeal 2015-002928 1,2
Application 13/501,552
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1and3-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, "th[ e] invention relates to controlling the
dehumidification of air or an air-gas mixture being conditioned for supply to
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Apr. 12,
2012) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Oct. 8, 2014), as well as the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer," mailed Nov. 4, 2014).
2 Appellants indicate that Carrier Corporation is the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002928
Application 13/501,552
a climate controlled space." Spec. ii 2. Claims 1, 12, and 21 are the only
independent claims. See Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as
representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
1. A method for controlling dehumidification of an
airflow to be conditioned for supply to a climate controlled
space, said method comprising:
operating a refrigerant vapor compression system to
circulate a refrigerant from a compressor, to a condenser, to an
expansion device, to an evaporator, and back to the compressor;
passing the airflow to be conditioned over a plurality of
refrigerant conveying conduits of the evaporator of the
refrigerant vapor compression system thereby cooling the
airflow;
operating the refrigeration vapor compression system to
maintain the airflow at a set point air temperature indicative of a
desired temperature within the climate controlled space; and
adjusting an evaporator expansion device upstream of the
evaporator so as to reduce the temperature of the refrigerant
within the refrigerant conveying conduits of the evaporator
whenever further dehumidification of the air flow to be
conditioned is desired;
wherein operating the refrigerant vapor compression
system to maintain said airflow at a set point air temperature
indicative of a desired temperature within the climate controlled
space includes reheating said airflow having passed over the
plurality of refrigerant conveying conduits of the evaporator at
an air reheater separate from the condenser prior to supplying
said airflow to the climate controlled space.
2
Appeal2015-002928
Application 13/501,552
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. 3
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yakumaru (US 2005/0217133 Al,
pub. Oct. 6, 2005) and West (US 6,427,454 Bl, iss. Aug. 6, 2002).
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yakumaru, West, and Shawhan (US 2,282,385, iss.
May 12, 1942).
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yakumaru, West, and Nussbaum (US 3,434,299, iss.
Mar. 25, 1969).
See Answer 2-14.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness rejection
Inasmuch as Appellants do not argue against the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1 and 3-11 as indefinite, we summarily sustain the rejection. See
Br. 4, n. l; see also Answer 2.
Obviousness rejections
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue "[ t ]h[ e]
rejection should be reversed as the Examiner has erred in combining
3 Although the Examiner appears to indicate that the claims are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b), this case is governed by the statutory provisions
in effect before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284 (2011), because Appellants filed the application before
September 16, 2012.
3
Appeal2015-002928
Application 13/501,552
Y akumaru and West, as Y akumaru teaches against the proposed
modification." Br. 4; see also id. at 4---6. Based on our review of the record,
including Yakumaru's paragraph 2, we do not agree with Appellants that
Yakumaru teaches away from using West's heating coil 11 with Yakumaru's
arrangement that already includes radiator 2 to heat air. See Br. 5; see also
Y akumaru i-f 2.
A reference teaches away from a modification when the reference,
taken as a whole, "criticiz[ es], discredit[ s ], or otherwise discourage[ s ]" the
modification. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this
case, we conclude that when taken as a whole, Yakumaru does not
sufficiently criticize, discredit, or discourage the use of a heating coil (as
disclosed in West) from being used with its arrangement that includes the
radiator. For example, we find that Yakumaru's paragraph 2 discusses, only
very briefly, disadvantages that are associated with arrangements that utilize
only an electric heater without any of the heat pump components described
in Yakumaru. See Yakumaru i-f 2. Such disclosure is insufficient to
establish that Y akumaru teaches away from the proposed modification.
Conversely, we agree with the Examiner that "[b ]y providing the heater of
West, ... the system of Y akumaru [would be] able to provide dry air at a
higher temperature to the conditioned space/drying chamber and[,] thus[,]
the performance of the system [would be] increased." Answer 18.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1.
Although independent claims 12 and 21 are argued separately,
Appellants' arguments are substantively the same as those discussed above
for claim 1. See Br. 6-10. Further, Appellants argue that the rejections of
4
Appeal2015-002928
Application 13/501,552
remammg claims 3-11, 13-20, and 22 are in error because the claims
depend from independent claims whose rejection is in error. See id. at 6, 8,
10-11. Thus, inasmuch as we do not find error in the rejection of claim 1,
we also do not find error in any of, and, therefore, we sustain each of, the
rejections of claims 3-22.
DECISION
We summarily AFFIRM the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of
claims 1 and 3-11
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1
and 3-22.
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
5