Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 21, 2019

14423254 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/423,254 02/23/2015 Jian Sun 87059 7590 03/25/2019 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. 61375US02 (U350300US2) 7343 EXAMINER ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2019 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 JIAN SUN and LUCY YI LIU Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action (dated May 16, 2017) ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Carrier Corporation, identified by the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter relates to improving the energy efficiency and/or low cooling capacity operation of a transcritical refrigerant vapor compression system. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with selected limitations emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A refrigerant vapor compression system comprising: a compression device for compressing a refrigerant vapor from a suction pressure to a discharge pressure, a refrigerant heat rejection heat exchanger and a refrigerant heat absorption heat exchanger arranged in serial refrigerant flow relationship in a transcritical cycle closed-loop primary refrigerant circuit, the refrigerant heat rejection heat exchanger functioning as a refrigerant gas cooler and the refrigerant heat absorption heat exchanger functioning as a refrigerant evaporator; and a controller operatively associated with the refrigerant vapor compression system, the controller configured to control the discharge pressure to a desired set point discharge pressure to improve energy efficiency, wherein the controller determines the set point discharge pressure as a mathematical product of a compressor speed correction factor multiplied by a function of a refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition and an evaporator refrigerant condition. Rejections I. Claims 1--4, 7, 8, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara (US 2010/0175400 Al, published July 15, 2010). Final Act. 4--7. II. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara and Yoshino (US 4,420,947, issued Dec. 20, 1983). Final Act. 8. 2 Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 III. Claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara and Chen (WO 2009/091400 Al, published July 23, 2009). Final Act. 8-11. IV. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kasahara, Chen, and Yoshino. Final Act. 11. DISCUSSION Rejection 1-35 USCÂ§ 103(a) over Kasahara Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 11 Appellant argues the rejection based on claim 1. See Br. 3-8. We select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds Kasahara teaches the refrigerant vapor compression system of independent claim 1, except for claim 1 's limitations requiring that "the controller determines the set point discharge pressure as a mathematical product of [ 1] a compressor speed correction factor multiplied by a function of [2a] a refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition and [2b] an evaporator refrigerant condition" (bracketed numbering added). The Examiner finds Kasahara determines the set point discharge pressure based on mathematical products including a function of a refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition (limitation 2a), namely T4 from sensor 39, Final Act. 4, which Kasahara describes as "the output signal from the gas cooler outlet temperature sensor (39) for the cooling operation (i.e., a gas cooler outlet temperature T4), Kasahara ,r 63. The Examiner acknowledges that this finding does not address the speed correction factor (limitation 1) or evaporator refrigerant condition (limitation 2b ), or the mathematical 3 Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 relationship between these inputs as recited in the claim. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds, however, that (1) Kasahara also uses a target discharge temperature calculator 43 to determine a set point discharge temperature Tls as a function of compressor speed fc and an evaporator refrigerant condition P 1, (2) "it is well known to the art that pressure and temperature are correlated by the pressure-temperature curve of a refrigerant," and (3) "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used only the set point discharge pressure to base the controller design on the inputs of a compressor speed correction factor, a refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition, and an evaporator refrigerant condition in order to optimize the controller through routine experimentation." Id. at 5; see Ans. 2-3. In addition, the Examiner relies on Figure 5 of Kasahara, finding that the figure shows "the compressor speed correction factor (~fc 1 ), set point discharge pressure (Phs by way of Plc), gas cooler outlet conditions (T4 or T3s by way of Plc and P5c), and evaporator refrigerant condition (Shs, Ta, or Ts by way of P5c, P9c, and P13c) are all related by mathematical products (though the addition of Plc, P5c, P9c, and P13c)." Id. The Examiner finds that "~fcl = Plc + P5c + P9c + P13c," and that "the mere rearrangement of the disclosed variables to solve for another variable (in this case set point discharge pressure), is a mere mathematical exercise and is inherently a function of said variables." Id.; see Ans. 4--5. Appellant argues that "[t]he fact that [Kasahara's] speed fc and an evaporator refrigerant condition are used by the target discharge temperature calculator 43 does not disclose or suggest that these values could be used by the target high pressure calculator 42 to determine a discharge pressure 4 Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 setpoint." Br. 6. Appellant contends that, although it is true that temperature and pressure of a refrigerant are correlated, "there is no predictable basis to use the speed fc and evaporator refrigerant condition as inputs to the target high pressure calculator 42." Id. Appellant also argues Kasahara's "fc" variable is not taught to be a speed correction factor. Id. As to the Examiner's rationale for modifying Kasahara, Appellant argues that the Examiner's "reliance on 'routine experimentation' is an improper standard for finding claim 1 obvious over Kasahara," and Appellant distinguishes the Examiner's findings in this case from cases in which the correct variables are taught in the prior art but do not meet ranges recited in the claims. Br. 6-7. Appellant contends that "Kasahara does not disclose using a compressor speed correction factor, refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition and an evaporator refrigerant condition as variables in determining a set point discharge pressure." Br. 7. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's rationale for modifying Kasahara to determine set point discharge pressure in the manner claimed is not sufficient here. To the extent the Examiner finds Kasahara determines the set point discharge pressure using similar inputs as recited in claim 1 and merely expresses the calculation in a different way that may be manipulated based on known correlations between variables in the system, the evidence does not support such a finding. The only two variables used to determine Kasahara's set point discharge pressure in the cooling embodiment described in paragraph 63 of Kasahara are two measured temperatures, namely the outdoor temperature TO and the gas cooler outlet temperature T4. Kasahara ,r 63. Although Kasahara's temperature T4 may be affected by compressor speed and an evaporator refrigerant condition, there is insufficient evidence 5 Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 that the claimed inputs can be simply substituted for T 4 with no effective change to Kasahara's control approach. Similarly, even if mathematically possible to substitute variables and solve the equation ( derived from Kasahara Figure 5) ~fcl = Plc + P5c + P9c + P13c for the set point discharge pressure, there is no indication in Kasahara that the target discharge pressure would be set in this manner by the controller. As to the Examiner's related finding that routine experimentation would have resulted in modifying Kasahara's approach to control of the system such that the set point discharge pressure was determined in the manner claimed, we agree with Appellant that this rationale is insufficient in this case. The Examiner does not find that one of ordinary skill would have recognized any particular benefit from using inputs other than Kasahara's sensed temperatures TO and T 4 to determine the set point discharge pressure, let alone a benefit to using the claimed inputs. Given the number of possible inputs and reasons given by Kasahara for controlling the refrigeration system in the manner taught, see, e.g., Kasahara ,r 83, we are not persuaded one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed control system through routine experimentation. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Kasahara. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, and 11 on the same ground. Rejections II-IV Like claim 1, independent claim 12 also recites that the set point discharge pressure is "determined as a mathematical product of a 6 Appeal2018-003963 Application 14/423,254 compressor speed factor multiplied by a function of a refrigerant gas cooler outlet condition and an evaporator refrigerant condition." Rejections II-IV rely on the same unsupported findings as the rejection of claim 1 discussed supra. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 6 (Rejection II), claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 18-20 (Rejection III), and claims 16 and 17 (Rejection IV), as set forth in Rejections II-IV. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 7