Ex Parte Pedersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2014

11652351 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

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