Ex Parte Szutu

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 2014

11985158 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/985,158 11/14/2007 Hui Jen Szutu 7561 7590 01/30/2014 Hui Jen Szutu 1022 S Gladys Avenue San Gabriel, CA 91776 EXAMINER KOAGEL, JONATHAN BRYAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HUI JEN SZUTU ____________________ Appeal 2012-002166 Application 11/985,158 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, NEIL T. POWELL, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002166 Application 11/985,158 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 4 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 4. A refrigeration condenser, comprising: multiple nonstick water pan stacked on top of each other; each of said water pans having an overflow facility, said overflow facility providing drainage to either of a lower positioned water pan and a drain; each of said water pans having high pressure refrigeration tubing attached to an underside of said water pan; said high pressure refrigeration tubing containing refrigerant; said refrigerant flowing upwardly from a bottom water pan to a top water pan; a supply of water, said water originating from either of an outside water supply line and a water storage container and entering said top water pan and flowing downwardly to said bottom water pan, thereby refilling each of said water pans as said water cools said refrigerant and evaporates from said water pan; and said supply of water flowing in a direction opposite of said flow of said refrigerant. Appeal 2012-002166 Application 11/985,158 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Baxter US 4,766,737 Aug. 30, 1988 Wang EP 0961092 A1 Dec. 1, 1999 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections. I. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baxter. II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baxter and Wang. ANALYSIS Claim 4 The Examiner finds that Baxter’s system includes a plurality of pans stacked on top of one another, with high pressure refrigeration tubing attached to an underside of the bottom pan. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that Baxter’s system does not meet the claim 4 limitation “each of said water pans having high pressure refrigeration tubing attached to an underside of said water pan.” See id. at 5. Addressing this claim limitation, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to attach high pressure refrigerant tubing to the underside of each of Baxter’s pans. Id. The Examiner reasons that this modification would involve mere duplication of working parts, and it would help evaporate water from the pans more quickly. Id. The Examiner also finds that Baxter’s system does not meet the Appeal 2012-002166 Application 11/985,158 4 claim limitation of “said refrigerant flowing upwardly from a bottom water pan to a top water pan.” Id. The Examiner determines that the modification of attaching tubing underneath each of Baxter’s water pans would result in Baxter’s system meeting the claim limitation regarding the direction of refrigerant flow. Id. In support of this contention, the Examiner reasons that “the source of refrigerant begins at the bottom water pan with tube 94.” Id. Appellant argues that this latter assertion does not make sense. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 14. Appellant asserts that Baxter’s tube 94 does not constitute the source of refrigerant. Reply Br. 14. Instead, Appellant argues, the refrigerant flows into and out of refrigerant tube 94, just as refrigerant flows into and out of other components in Baxter’s system. Id. at 14-15. The Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument rests on the same substantive contention as the rejection: that “the source of refrigerant is in the bottom coil.” Ans. 10. Consistent with Appellant’s argument, we do not believe the Examiner has supported this contention. The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s observation that Baxter’s tube 94 receives refrigerant from one or more other components and discharges refrigerant to one or more other components. See Reply Br. 14; Ans. 10. Given this, absent further explanation, the Examiner fails to establish a sound basis to support the contention that tubing 94 would constitute “the source” of refrigerant. Because the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness rests on this contention, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4. Appeal 2012-002166 Application 11/985,158 5 Claim 5 The rejection of dependent claim 5 does not contain findings or reasoning curing the foregoing deficiencies in the rejection of independent claim 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4 and 5. REVERSED rvb