Ex Parte Taras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11102007 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL TARAS and ALEXANDER LIFSON
____________

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON and NEIL T.
POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Taras and Alexander Lifson (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-16, 19,
21, and 26-30. Claims 17, 18, 20, and 22-25 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is directed to a refrigerant system and
method. Independent claim 1, directed to the system, is illustrative:
1. A refrigerant system comprising:

a compressor having a variable speed drive for
varying a speed of said compressor;

a condenser downstream of said compressor and
an evaporator downstream of said condenser;

a reheat circuit for selectively receiving refrigerant
through a reheat heat exchanger, an air moving device
passing air over said evaporator and said reheat heat
exchanger; and

a control for selectively operating said reheat
circuit to deliver refrigerant through said reheat heat
exchanger, and said control also being operable to vary
said speed of said compressor to achieve levels of
humidity control between a level of control with said
reheat circuit being operational and a level of control
without said reheat circuit being operational.

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-16, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Iritani (US 6,293,123 B1, issued Sep. 25, 2001);
(ii) claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iritani in view of Dobmeier (US 6,701,723 B1, issued
Mar. 9, 2004);
(iii) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Iritani in view of Alford (US 2003/0192331 A1, published Oct. 16, 2003);
and
(iv) claims 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Iritani in view of Rayburn (US 2005/0022541 A1, published Feb. 3, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation--Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-16, 21, and 26--Iritani
The Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 15 separately. We take claim 1
as representative of a group including independent claim 1 and claims 3-5, 7,
and 14 depending therefrom. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). We
take claim 2 as representative of a group including claim 2 and claims 10
and 12 depending therefrom. We take claim 15 as representative of a group
including independent claim 15 and claims 16, 21,1 and 26 depending
therefrom.

1 Claim 21 depends from canceled claim 17. Since canceled claim 17
previously depended from claim 15, and since the Appellants attempted to
amend claim 21 to depend from claim 15 in an unentered Amendment dated
November 21, 2008 (after final action), for purposes of this appeal we will
treat claim 21 as depending from claim 15 and as grouped therewith.
Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

4
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner found that Iritani discloses a
refrigerant system including a reheat heat exchanger that selectively receives
refrigerant and a control that is operable to vary the speed of the compressor
to achieve levels of humidity control. Ans. 3. The Examiner regards
element 60 of Iritani as a reheat heat exchanger that selectively receives
refrigerant, asserting that during a dehumidifying mode it receives
refrigerant and reheats cooled air, and during a cooling mode it does not
receive refrigerant. Ans. 14. In addition, the Examiner maintains that
Iritani’s controller 40 varies the speed of compressor 22 based upon
temperature control lever’s 51 position to achieve levels of humidity control.
Ans. 14-15; Iritani, col. 7, ll. 3-6, 15-20; col. 11, ll. 30-56.
The Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that element 60 in
Iritani is a reheat heat exchanger, arguing that it does not function as a reheat
heat exchanger.2 App. Br. 4. The Appellants further argue that element 60
does not selectively receive refrigerant because it continuously receives
refrigerant. Id. Finally, the Appellants contend that Iritani does not disclose
that “the compressor motor is varied in speed to achieve various levels of
dehumidification.” Id.
The Appellants’ reliance upon Iritani’s cooling mode in arguing that
element 60 is not a reheat heat exchanger is misplaced. The Examiner
acknowledges that element 60 does not reheat air during cooling mode, but

2 The Appellants contend that during Iritani’s cooling mode, heat exchanger
60 does not reheat air because fan 7 blows air across evaporator 11, but does
not blow air across heat exchanger 60 because doors 16 and 17 are closed
and direct the air away from that heat exchanger. App. Br. 4; see Iritani, col.
10, l. 63, to col. 11, l. 5. The Appellants also contend that during Iritani’s
dehumidifying and heating modes, heat exchanger 60 does not reheat air
because air does not pass over “the cooling heat exchanger.” App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

5
the Examiner points out that element 60 reheats air during dehumidifying
mode.3 Ans. 14; Iritani, col. 12, ll. 9-13. The Examiner further points out
that element 60 receives refrigerant flow during dehumidifying mode,4 and
does not receive refrigerant flow during cooling mode,5 resulting in element
60 selectively receiving refrigerant.6 We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that element 60 in Iritani satisfies the limitation
requiring that the reheat heat exchanger selectively receives refrigerant.
We also adopt the Examiner’s finding that Iritani shows a control that
varies the speed of the compressor to achieve levels of humidity control as
claimed. The Examiner points out that control lever 51 and controller 40
vary the speed of compressor 22 to achieve a level of humidity control when
the reheat circuit is operational (either dehumidifying mode “PD1” or
“PD2”) and a level when the reheat circuit is not operational (either cooling
mode “PC1” or “PC2”). Ans. 3, 14-15. We note that cooling modes “PC1”
and “PC2” inherently provide a level of humidity control by each having

3 During dehumidifying mode, fan 7 blows air through evaporator 11 and
element 60, cooling and dehumidifying the air in evaporator 11 and
reheating the air in element 60. Iritani, col. 12, ll. 9-15; Figures 1, 8.

4 In dehumidifying mode, valve 211A allows refrigerant to flow to element
60. Iritani, col. 11, ll. 51-53.

5 In cooling mode, valve 211A and first depressurizing device 26 are closed
to stop refrigerant flow to element 60. Iritani, col. 11, ll. 7-13.

6 During cooling mode, fan 7 blows air through evaporator 11, but does not
blow air through element 60 because doors 16 and 17 are closed. Iritani, col.
10, l. 63, to col. 11, l. 5. Instead, closed doors 16 and 17 divert blown air
around element 60 and into bypass passage 12a and air passage 15. Id.

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

6
different target temperatures, resulting in different maximum humidity levels
that the air can naturally hold. Iritani, Figure 4. We also note that modes
PD1 and PD2 are each associated with different compressor speeds set by
control lever 51. Iritani, col. 7, ll. 3-6, 15-20; Figures 2, 3. We are not
apprised of error in the Examiner’s finding that Iritani shows a control that
varies the speed the compressor to achieve the claimed levels of humidity
control.
The Appellants further argue, in the Reply Brief, that there would be
“no reason to vary the speed of the compressor in [the dehumidification]
mode, and certainly not based upon a desired level of humidity control”
between the levels recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2. Without explaining why,
the Appellants state that “the reference cannot meet these limitations.” Id.
The control lever 51 in Iritani is disclosed as setting the target rotation speed
and a target higher pressure, and Iritani further discloses two different
control lever positions for dehumidification modes, PD1 and PD2. Iritani,
col. 7, ll. 1-26. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
this respect.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3-5, 7, and 14
depending therefrom, as being anticipated by Iritani is sustained.
With regard to claim 2, the Examiner found that Iritani discloses
varying the speed of the compressor to achieve levels of humidity control
with an economizer heat exchanger in the refrigerant circuit.7 Ans. 4, 5, 15,

7 “[S]aid control being operable to vary the speed of said compressor to
provide variation in humidity control between a level with said reheat circuit
operational, a level with both said reheat circuit operational and said
economizer circuit operational, and a level without either of said reheat
circuit or said economizer circuit operational.” Appellants’ claim 2, ll. 5-9.
Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

7
and 16. The Examiner interprets Iritani’s refrigerant heat exchanger 23 as an
economizer heat exchanger, and as already set forth in claim 1, properly
found that Iritani’s controller 40 varies the speed of compressor 22 based
upon the position of temperature control lever 51 to achieve levels of
humidity control. Id.; Iritani, col. 7, ll. 3-6, 15-20; col. 11, ll. 30-56. The
Appellants again challenge the Examiner’s finding, contending that Iritani
“does not vary its compressor at all.” App. Br. 5. As discussed above with
respect to claim 1, this argument appears to be completely at odds with the
Iritani disclosure.
The Appellants also argue that “there would be no reason to utilize the
heat exchanger 60 of Iritani, et al. with its economizer circuit, and certainly
not during a dehumidification mode.” Reply Br. 2. Iritani has been shown
to meet all of the structural limitations of claim 2, and is capable of
operating in the manner claimed. We are thus not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting that claim as anticipated by Iritani. The
rejection of claim 2, and of claims 10-13 depending therefrom, is sustained.
With regard to method claim 15, the rationale set forth by the
Examiner in rejecting this claim is the same as articulated for claim 1 above.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner did not consider the functional
language of claim 1, and that it is not proper to consider control steps as
being intended use when considering a method claim which requires specific
steps. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner addresses the actual method
steps at page 15 of the Answer, and the Appellants do not contest the
Examiner’s position in this regard. The rejection of claim 15, and of claims
16, 21 and 26 depending therefrom, is sustained.

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

8
Obviousness--Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 19--Iritani/Dobmeier
The Examiner takes the position that Iritani discloses all limitations of
the claimed invention with the exception of the reheat circuit receiving
refrigerant in a parallel flow arrangement relative to the condenser (claim 8),
the provision of a condenser bypass (claims 9 and 19), the economizer heat
exchanger receiving refrigerant downstream from the reheat heat exchanger
(claim 11), and the reheat heat exchanger in a parallel flow arrangement with
the economizer heat exchanger (claim 13). Ans. 7-8. The Examiner cites to
the Dobmeier patent as teaching these elements, and concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the Iritani device to include the elements. Id.
The Appellants argue that Dobmeier is not combinable with Iritani, given
that Iritani “wants a special high pressure refrigerant to be delivered to the
heat exchanger 60.” App. Br. 5-6. The Appellants further maintain that this
high pressure “requires special piping”, and to modify Iritani as proposed
“would ruin the operation of Iritani, et al. and remove this feature.” Reply
Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. The Appellants
have not pointed out precisely why the Iritani system as modified by
Dobmeier cannot accommodate a high pressure refrigerant, or why the high
pressure feature would be removed by combining the teachings. As a result,
the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner’s conclusion lacks support
in the form of rational underpinnings. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
8, 9, 11, 13, and 19, as being unpatentable over Iritani in view of Dobmeier
is sustained.

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

9
Obviousness--Claim 6--Iritani/Alford
The Examiner takes the position that Iritani discloses all the
limitations of claim 6 with the exception of the reheat circuit receiving
refrigerant from a location upstream of the condenser. Ans. 108. The
Examiner relies upon Alford as teaching this limitation. Id. The Appellants
counter that combining Alford with Iritani in the manner provided by the
Examiner would destroy the operation of the Iritani heat exchanger. Reply
Br. 3.
In reasoning that Alford is properly combined with Iritani “to
advantageously receive the hottest liquid refrigerant possible going to the
reheater heat exchanger…,” the Examiner misunderstands how element 60
of Iritani operates. Ans. 10-11. If Iritani were modified to receive
refrigerant upstream of the condenser 12 as the Examiner maintains, element
60 in the Iritani system would cease functioning to recoup excess heat from
the refrigerant that has passed through condenser 12 (i.e., downstream of
condenser 12), and would instead essentially function as a second condenser.
Iritani, Fig. 1. The Examiner has not adequately explained why the
proposed modification of Iritani’s element 60 to receive “the hottest liquid”
upstream of the condenser would have been obvious, given the change in the
fundamental purpose of device 60 in Iritani that would result from the
modification. As a result, the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious, in view of the disclosure of Alford, to modify the Iritani
system to include “the reheat circuit receiving refrigerant from a location

8 The ground of rejection states that Iritani does disclose the reheat circuit
receiving refrigerant from a location upstream of the condenser, but, reading
the ground of rejection as a whole, that statement appears to be in error, and
that the opposite was meant. Ans. 10.
Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

10
upstream of the condenser” as taught by Alford, is not supported by rational
underpinnings. The rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Iritani in
view of Alford is not sustained.

Obviousness--Claims 27-30--Iritani/Rayburn
The Examiner takes the position that Iritani discloses all the
limitations in these claims with the exception of a control that identifies a
desired humidity level (claims 27 and 29) and that the control adjusts the
speed of the compressor incrementally (claims 28 and 30). Ans. 11-13. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious, in view of the
teachings of Rayburn, to modify the Iritani system to include these features.
Id. The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
combine an additional control with Iritani’s manual lever. Reply Br. 3.
We note that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Rayburn with
Iritani does not address all limitations set forth in claims 27-29. By setting
forth Rayburn’s teaching of “a control to identify a desired humidity level”
to actuate the reheat circuit, and combining this teaching with Iritani in order
to “consume less energy than modulating the compressor speed to lower
humidity level,” the Examiner appears to be proposing a system in which
modulating the compressor speed with a variable speed control to attain a
desired level of humidity is not employed. However, claims 27-30
specifically require adjusting the speed

Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

11
of a compressor to approach a desired humidity level.9
As a result, the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious, in view of the disclosure of Rayburn, to modify the Iritani system
to include “a control to identify a desired humidity level” as taught by
Rayburn, to “consume less energy,” is not supported by rational
underpinnings. The rejection of claims 27-30 as being unpatentable over
Iritani in view of Rayburn is not sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that the subject matter of claims
1-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-16, 21, and 26 is anticipated by Iritani.
The Examiner did not err in concluding that the subject matter of
claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 19 would have been obvious over Iritani in view of
Dobmeier.
The Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claim 6
would have been obvious over Iritani in view of Alford.
The Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claims
27-30 would have been obvious over Iritani in view of Rayburn.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-16, 19, 21, and 26 are affirmed.

9 Claims 27 and 29 each require “a control [that] identifies a desired
humidity level… and approaches this desired humidity level… by…
adjusting the speed of said compressor with said variable speed control to
further approach the desired humidity level.” Claim 27, ll. 1-4; Claim 29, ll.
1-4. Claim 30 requires that “the control adjusts the speed of the compressor
incrementally, and the control monitors humidity to ensure that the desired
humidity level is approached.” Claim 30, ll. 1-3.
Appeal 2010-000836
Application 11/102,007

12
The rejections of claims 6 and 27-30 are reversed.

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-IN-PART

mls