Ex Parte Pedersen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 201411652351 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NIELS PEDERSEN and RUNE THOMSEN ____________ Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and apparatus for starting a compressor in a refrigeration system in a manner that conserves power, yet still ensures reliable start-up of the compressor. Spec. ¶ 1. Illustrative Claim Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims. Claims 2–5 depend directly from independent claim 1, and claims 7–10 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 6. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the disclosed invention and is reproduced below (emphasis added): 1. A method for starting a compressor in a refrigeration system, the refrigeration system further comprising a condenser and an evaporator, said compressor, condenser and evaporator being interconnected in a circuit in which a refrigerant is allowed to flow, the method comprising the steps of: attempting start-up of the compressor, thereby initiating a start-up sequence, determining, by sensing compressor motor current or speed, whether the attempted start-up of the compressor was successful, only in the case that it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was unsuccessful, starting a condenser cooling means, thereby providing cooling for the condenser, and waiting for a predefined time interval, repeating the above steps until it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was successful, and ending the start-up sequence. Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 3 Prior Art Relied Upon Pohl US 4,653,285 Mar. 31, 1987 Torrence US 4,841,734 June 27, 1989 Noto US 5,582,233 Dec. 10, 1996 Gustafson US 2001/0054293 A1 Dec. 27, 2001 Forrest US 6,637,229 B1 Oct. 28, 2003 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pohl and Torrence. Ans. 2–7. Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pohl, Torrence, and Noto. Id. at 7–8. Claims 5 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pohl, Torrence, and Gustafson. Id. at 8–9. Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pohl, Torrence, and Forrest. Id. at 9. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions The Examiner finds that the combination of Pohl and Torrence collectively teaches all the claim limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Ans. 4–7, 10–12. In particular, the Examiner finds that Pohl teaches condenser cooling means 42, i.e., a fan, as well as waiting a predefined time interval before using this fan, but that Pohl fails to limit application of the fan to “only in the case that it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was unsuccessful.” Id. at 5 (citing Pohl, col. 13, ll. 33–37; 44– 49; 59–63; col. 14, ll. 6–9; 18–26; fig. 7, steps 500, 506–508, 516, 518). The Examiner then finds that Torrence teaches, in the case where a compressor is shut down, activating a fan to balance out the pressure in the Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 4 system. Id. (citing Torrence, col. 9, l. 65–col. 10, l. 2). Based on this teaching in Torrence, the Examiner concludes that one of skill in the art would have modified the method of Pohl to activate a condenser cooling fan to increase the efficiency of the system and to prevent damage to the compressor by dissipating high and low pressure conditions. Id. at 6. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s position that the combination of Pohl and Torrence collectively teaches “only in the case that it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was unsuccessful, starting a condenser cooling means” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 6. App. Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellants argue that Pohl teaches away from starting a condenser means only in the event that a failed compressor re-start was unsuccessful because Pohl “cycle[s] the entire system ON and OFF as required.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pohl, col. 8, ll. 18–20). Appellants also argue that Torrence teaches away from starting a condenser means only in the event that a failed compressor re-start was unsuccessful because Torrence discloses starting a condenser fan together with or before starting a compressor. Id. at 10–11 (citing Torrence, col. 9, l. 65–col. 10, l. 2). Based on those teaching away arguments, Appellants assert that the combination of Pohl and Torrence fails to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation identified above. Id. at 11. In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants contend that, because Pohl “typically” affects thermostatic control by “cycling the entire system ON and OFF as required,” Pohl actually teaches the opposite of starting a condenser cooling means only when a compressor fails to start up, Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 5 as required by independent claims 1 and 6. Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pohl, col. 8, ll. 16–20). II. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Pohl and Torrence renders independent claims 1 and 6 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether: (a) the proffered combination collectively teaches “only in the case that it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was unsuccessful, starting a condenser cooling means,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 6; and (b) Pohl and Torrence teach away from their combination and, as a result, teach away from the claimed invention. III. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Pohl and Terrance Claims 1 and 6 Based on the record before us, we do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, which recites, inter alia, “only in the case that it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was unsuccessful, starting a condenser cooling means.” We also do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 6, which recites a similar claim limitation. At the outset, we agree with the Examiner that Pohl teaches entering a compressor check routine when a compressor ON cycle is initiated. Ans. 5 (citing Pohl, col. 13, ll. 33–37; fig. 7, step 500). Pohl discloses, after a Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 6 compressor motor locked time interval passes, determining voltage across the capacitor-winding of the motor driving the compressor (“VC”) relative to an alternating current line voltage (“VL”), expressing that determination as a ratio (“VC/VL” ratio), and then storing it as a reference loading ratio. Id. (citing Pohl, col. 13, ll. 44–46; fig. 7, step 506). Pohl discloses comparing the reference loading ratio to subsequent voltage ratios “to ensure the compressor motor has in fact started.” Id. (citing Pohl, col. 13, ll. 46–49; fig. 7, step 508). If a compressor motor locked condition exists—meaning the compressor has failed to start—the compressor is de-energized. Pohl, col. 13, ll. 55–58; fig. 7, step 510. According to Pohl, there is a two and half minute cool-down period prior to another re-start attempt (Ans. 5 (citing Pohl, col. 13, ll. 59–63; col. 14, ll. 3–5; fig. 7, step 516)), after which there is a predetermined number of re-start attempts to start the compressor. Id. (citing Pohl, col. 14, ll. 6–9; fig. 7, step 518). The Examiner finds that Pohl is silent as to “only in the case that it is determined that the attempted start-up of the compressor was unsuccessful, starting a condenser cooling means,” as claimed. Ans. 5. The Examiner, nonetheless, finds that Torrence discloses that, in the event of an abnormal condition, e.g., a failed start-up, the system disables the compressor, enables a compressor fan, and re-enables the compressor when the abnormal condition dissipates. Id. at 5 (citing Torrence, col. 9, l. 65–col. 10, l. 2). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have modified Pohl’s compressor start-up routine with the teachings of Torrence, such that, when start-up of Pohl’s compressor is unsuccessful, the fan kicks in to cool the compressor until the abnormal condition that resulted in the unsuccessful Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 7 attempt to start the compressor, e.g., a high pressure condition, dissipates. See id. at 5–6. Teaching Away We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Pohl teaches away from starting a condenser means only in the event that a failed compressor re-start was unsuccessful. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. A reference teaches away from a claimed invention if it “criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages” modifying the reference to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We will not, however, “read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We agree with the Examiner’s position that Pohl’s disclosure of control system 62 “typically effect[ing] thermostatic control by cycling the entire system ON and OFF as required” merely describes a general operating scheme for a refrigeration system that is well understood in the art. Ans. 10 (quoting Pohl, col. 8, ll. 16–20). Moreover, Pohl’s disclosure of control system 62 “typically” effecting thermostatic control does not indicate that Pohl is incapable of shutting down the compressor and enabling only the fan, as required by independent claims 1 and 6. We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Torrence teaches away from starting a condenser means only in the event that a failed compressor re-start was unsuccessful. App. Br. 10–11. Similar to our analysis above with respect to Appellants’ teaching away argument regarding Pohl, Appellants have not shown where Torrence “criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]” starting its compressor fan only Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 8 after there is an unsuccessful attempt to start the compressor. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Appellants have read into Torrence a teaching away from this process where no such language exists. Therefore, Applicants have not shown that Pohl and Torrence teach away from their combination and, as a result, teach away from the claimed invention. In summary, we are persuaded that the Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the combination of Pohl and Torrence collectively teaches the disputed claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the combination of Pohl and Torrence renders independent claims 1 and 6 unpatentable. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 9 Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for patentability with respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 9. Therefore, we accept Appellants’ grouping of these dependent claims with their underlying base claims. App. Br. 11–13. Consequently, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 9 fall with independent claims 1 and 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Remaining 103(a) Rejections Claims 4, 5, 8, and 10 Appellants contend that Noto, Gustafson, and Forrest do not remedy the deficiencies identified above in the Examiner’s combination of Pohl and Torrence. App. Br. 12–14. As discussed above, there are no such deficiencies in the Examiner’s combination of Pohl and Torrence for Noto, Gustafson, and Forest to remedy. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that: (1) the combination of Pohl, Torrence, and Noto renders claim 4 unpatentable; (2) the combination of Pohl, Torrence, and Appeal 2012-005204 Application 11/652,351 9 Gustafson renders claims 5 and 8 unpatentable; and (3) the combination of Pohl, Torrence, and Forrest renders claim 10 unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–10 as being unpatentable under § 103(a). V. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation