Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2012

10931189 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RATNESH K. SHARMA, CULLEN E. BASH, and
CHANDRAKANT D. PATEL
____________________

Appeal 2010-004281
Application 10/931,189
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004281
Application 10/931,189
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 19, and 31-35. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for controlling an air conditioning unit based on an
index of performance designed to quantify re-circulation levels,
said air conditioning unit being configured to supply cooling
fluid to one or more locations, whereby the cooling fluid is
operable to be heated at the one or more locations, said method
comprising:
determining an index of performance set point;
measuring the index of performance for a first iteration,
wherein the index of performance quantifies a re-circulation
level of the heated cooling fluid flow into the cooling fluid flow
supplied to the one or more locations;
determining whether the measured index of performance
for the first iteration equals or exceeds the index of performance
set point; and
increasing a supply air temperature of the air
conditioning unit in response to the measured index of
performance for the first iteration equaling or exceeding the
index of performance set point.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Gauthier
Schumacher
Eisenhour
US 2001/0020644 A1
US 6,374,627 B1
US 6,782,945 B1
Sep. 13, 2001
Apr. 23, 2002
Aug. 31, 2004

Appeal 2010-004281
Application 10/931,189
3
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 3, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gauthier.
II. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gauthier and Eisenhour.
III. Claims 19 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gauthier and Schumacher.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
The issues raised in this appeal hinge on the construction of the
limitation: “index of performance … wherein the index of performance
quantifies a re-circulation level of the heated cooling fluid flow into the
cooling fluid flow supplied to the one or more locations,” which is found in
each of the independent claims. Appellants do not allege, nor do we find,
any special definition of the term “index of performance” set forth in the
Specification. Appellants allege that the claims themselves define the term.
Reply Br. 6. However, Appellants do no more than repeat the claim
language and fail to propose any meaningful claim construction or otherwise
explain how the Examiner’s claim construction and reading of the construed
claim on the art is in error.
The Examiner found that the return air temperature sensor satisfies the
“index of performance” limitation of the claims. Ans. 3-4. Although the
Examiner incorrectly labels the rest of the limitation as “intended use,” the
Examiner gives the rest of the limitation appropriate weight, stating that it
Appeal 2010-004281
Application 10/931,189
4
requires quantification of the “flow of cooling fluid.” Id. The Examiner
further explains that the return air temperature quantifies the temperature of
the cooled air from the air conditioner, which is heated in the controlled
space and returned to the air conditioning system. Ans. 11. To put it
another way, the Examiner is saying that the return air temperature
quantifies the temperature of the cooled air expelled from the air
conditioner, mixed with previously expelled cooled air (the ambient, or
heated cooling air), and returned to the system.
Reviewing the Examiner’s claim construction, we do not find error.
The claim limitation merely states that the index “quantifies a re-circulation
level,” but does not further elaborate on what “quantifies” or “level” means,
which are the key words in the limitation. Cf. claim 2 (specifying a
particular formula). Both words in the limitation are extremely broad:
“quantifies” means “to determine the quantity of something or to measure or
express it as a quantity” and “level” means “a specified … value or extent.”1
Accordingly, to quantify a re-circulation level is to express as a quantity the
extent of re-circulation (i.e., to put a number to). The remaining portion of
the limitation, “of the heated cooling fluid flow … locations” specifies what
is counted as re-circulation, viz., expelled cooling fluid mixed with
previously expelled (and thus heated) cooling fluid.
Accordingly, the Examiner correctly found that the return air
temperature “quantifies a re-circulation level” because if the return air is
warm that is indicative of much mixing occurring with the warm ambient air
(i.e., the prior cooling fluid), whereas if the air were cool that would be

1 Both definitions from Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2001) (from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambdict) (last visited Sep. 11,
2012).
Appeal 2010-004281
Application 10/931,189
5
indicative of less mixing occurring before the cooling air went into the
return. The Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with the Specification,
which also uses temperature sensors on return air ducts to quantify re-
circulation. Spec. 21:1-3 (“the temperatures detected by one or more of the
sensors … may be implemented to determine metrics of re-circulation”).
In light of the above, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 34, which we sustain. Claims 3 and 35 are not
argued separately and fall therewith. Appellants separately argue the
rejection of claim 4 (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 8-9) but rely on the
unpersuasive argument addressed above; we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Appellants separately argue the rejection of claims 19 and 31-33 (App. Br.
16-17; Reply Br. 9-10) but, aside from relying on the unpersuasive argument
addressed above, merely point out claim language without identifying what
gaps, if any, exist between the Examiner’s findings and the claim
limitations. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37(c)(1)(vii) to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior
art). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 31-33.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 19, and
31-35. 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

Appeal 2010-004281
Application 10/931,189
6

hh