Ex Parte Taras et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 26, 2019

13984174 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/984,174 08/07/2013 Michael F. Taras 87059 7590 02/28/2019 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. 57981US2 (U300013US2) 2273 EXAMINER ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2019 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 MICHAEL F. TARAS, MARK J. PERKO VI CH, and MEL WOLDESEMAYAT Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984,174 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16, 21, 22, 31-38, 40-45, 47, and 48. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest in this appeal is CARRIER CORPORATION." Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claims 16, 34, and 42 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 16. A refrigeration unit, comprising: a vapor compression cycle unit including an evaporator, an air-cooled heat rejection heat exchanger and a compressor; and a water-cooled brazed plate heat rejection heat exchanger operably disposed between the compressor and the evaporator receiving high temperature fluid from the compressor and low temperature fluid from an external source, whereby the high temperature fluid is cooled via thermal communication with the low temperature fluid and is flown from the compressor to the evaporator, the water-cooled brazed plate heat rejection heat exchanger being formed to define high and low temperature fluid pathways and including first and second pluralities of brazed joint formations to prevent fluid entering the high temperature fluid pathway at a high temperature side of the water-cooled brazed plate heat rejection heat exchanger from flowing into the low temperature fluid pathway at a low temperature side of the water-cooled brazed plate heat rejection heat exchanger and vice versa, wherein: the compressor comprises at least first and second compression stage compressors, and the air-cooled heat rejection heat exchanger comprises an air-cooled gas cooler/condenser operably disposed downstream from the second stage compressor and an air-cooled intercooler abutting the air-cooled gas cooler/condenser in an airflow and operably disposed downstream from the first stage compressor, the water-cooled brazed plate heat rejection heat exchanger comprises a primary water-cooled braze plate heat rejection heat exchanger positioned downstream from the second stage compressor and directly downstream from the air-cooled gas cooler/condenser and a secondary water-cooled braze plate 2 Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 heat rejection heat exchanger, which is separate from the primary water-cooled brazed plate heat rejection heat exchanger and positioned downstream from the first stage compressor and directly downstream from the air-cooled intercooler. Rejections I. Claims 42--45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. II. Claims 16, 21, 22, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yamada2, Martins3, Raun4, and Jia5. III. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yamada, Martins, Raun, Jia, and Lifson6â€¢ IV. Claims 34--38, 40--45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yamada, Martins, Raun, Jia, and Yao 7. ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claim 42 recites, among other things, "a vapor compression cycle unit including an evaporator, an air-cooled heat rejection heat exchanger comprising an air-cooled gas cooler/condenser and an air- cooled intercooler abutting the air cooled gas cooler/condenser in an airflow and a compressor operably disposed between the evaporator and the condenser." Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner 2 Yamada et al. (US 2012/0000237 Al, pub. Jan. 5, 2012). 3 Martins et al. (US 2006/0053833 Al, pub. Mar. 16, 2006). 4 Raun et al. (WO 03/019085 Al, pub. Mar. 6, 2003). 5 Jia et al. (US 2005/0279127 Al, pub. Dec. 22, 2005). 6 Lifson et al. (US 2006/0010899 Al, pub. Jan. 19, 2006). 7 Yao et al. (US 2010/0258285 Al, pub. Oct. 14, 2010). 3 Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 rejects claim 42 as indefinite because it is unclear if the term "the condenser" refers back to "an air-cooled gas cooler/condenser." Final Act. 3. The Appellants argue that the term "the condenser" in claim 42 refers back to "an air-cooled gas cooler/condenser" because there is "no other mention of anything like or corresponding to a condenser of any sort." Appeal Br. 9. Additionally, the Appellants argue: when reviewing the entirety of the relevant portion of claim 42, the reasonable person sees that the claim recites "an evaporator," "an air-cooled heat rejection heat exchanger comprising an air- cooled gas cooler/condenser and an air-cooled intercooler abutting the air cooled gas cooler/condenser in an airflow" and "a compressor operably disposed between the evaporator and the condenser." This would naturally lead the reasonable person to see that the "compressor" language is clearly setting forth the positioning of the compressor between the evaporator and the air-cooled gas cooler/condenser. Reply Br. 1. We agree with the Appellants' argument. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 42, and claims 43--45, 47, and 48 that depend therefrom. Re} ections II-IV Independent claim 16 recites "[a] refrigerator unit" including, among other things, "an air-cooled intercooler abutting the air-cooled gas cooler/condenser in an airflow." Appeal Br., Claims App. Independent claims 34 and 42 include a similar limitation as claim 16. Id. The Examiner identifies Yamada' s heat pump system, as depicted in Figure 17, as corresponding to the claimed "refrigerator unit." Final Act. 5. The Examiner identifies Yamada' s intermediate-pressure water heat exchanger 40 and second high-pressure-water heat exchanger 52 as 4 Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 corresponding to the claimed "air-cooled intercooler" and "air-cooled gas cooler/condenser," respectively. Id. at 6; see Yamada ,r 129. The Examiner finds that Yamada' s intermediate-pressure water heat exchanger 40 and second high-pressure-water heat exchanger 52 "do not abut in an airflow" and are ultimately cooled by air at air-warming circuit 60, which includes radiator 61. Final Act. 6, 7. In other words, the Examiner finds that Yamada fails to teach the entirety of "an air-cooled intercooler abutting the air-cooled gas cooler/condenser in an airflow," as recited in claim 16. To remedy this deficiency the Examiner turns to the teachings of Raun or, alternatively, Jia. Id. at 7. More specifically, the Examiner finds that "Raun discloses an air cooled heat rejection heat exchanger (E) and an air cooled intercooler (C) abutting in the same air stream," and "Jia discloses an air cooled heat rejection heat exchanger (21 'GC') and an air cooled intercooler (26 'INT') abutting in the same air stream." Id. The Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to have eliminated the water radiator loop of Yamada in favor of the direct air cooling taught by Raun or Jia in order to reduce the number of parts in the system, reduce the weight of the system, reduce the cost of the system, and to save space (Jia; p0006, p0034-35). Id. ( emphasis added). Moreover, it is the Examiner's position that "the presence or lack of a fan is not material to the rejection." See Ans. 8. Additionally, the Examiner explains, "[a]ssuming arguendo that a fan were incorporated into the claim then the prior art[, ]Jia and Raun would provide clear support for associating a fan therewith." Id.; see id. at 9 (explaining "if a fan were to be incorporated into the combination the teaching references Jia and Raun each provide clear support [for] the addition."). In view of the 5 Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 foregoing, we understand the Examiner's modification of Yamada to not include airflow from a fan. The Appellants argue that "[because] the claimed abutment is in an 'airflow,' the abutment between [Yamada' s] intermediate-pressure water heat exchanger 40 and ... second high-pressure water heat exchanger 52 would also need to be in an airflow for the claimed limitation to be met in full." Reply Br. 2-3. The Appellants argument is persuasive of Examiner error. As pointed out above, claim 16 recites "an air-cooled intercooler abutting the air-cooled gas cooler/condenser in an airflow." Appeal Br., Claims App. And, the Examiner's rejection fails to adequately explain how Yamada' s heat pump system, as modified, results in heat exchanger 40 abutting second high-pressure water heat exchanger 52 in an airflow. Initially, we note that the Examiner finds that Yamada' s heat exchangers 40 and 52 are used for heating air in a space by radiator 61. Ans. 4. More specifically, Yamada's "air heating water circuit [60 (i.e., an air warming circuit)] passes water through heat exchangers 40 and 52 to be sent to radiator 61 which is used for heating air in a space ([0129] 'The radiator 61 is disposed in a space where air warming will be performed')." Id. However, the Examiner's modification of Yamada' s heat pump system expressly eliminates air heating water circuit 60, which includes radiator 61. Id. at 7. As for the Examiner's particular finding that "Raun discloses an air cooled heat rejection heat exchanger (E) and an air cooled intercooler (C) abutting in the same air stream" (Final Act. 7), this finding clearly makes reference to an air stream. We understand the Examiner's reference to "the 6 Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 same air stream" as the airflow generated by ventilation fan N. See Raun 15: 11-12, Fig. 11. However, the Examiner does not include Raun's fan Nin the modification ofYamada's heat pump system. Similarly, the Examiner's finds that "Jia discloses an air cooled heat rejection heat exchanger (21 'GC') and an air cooled intercooler (26 'INT') abutting in the same air stream." Final Act. 7. We understand the Examiner's reference to "the same air stream" as the airflow generated by fan 24. See Jia ,r 38, Fig. 1. However, the Examiner does not include Jia's fan 24 in the modification of Yamada' s heat pump system. Further, the Examiner suggests in the Answer that the rejection could be changed to include a fan and would still be adequately supported by the rationale provided by the rejection. See Ans. 9. Even if this rejection had been made, the Examiner's reasoning fails to adequately explain how Yamada' s heat pump system would transmit heat to "the space around [radiator 61] without the air warming circuit 60," because the elimination of air heating water circuit 60 inhibits such a function. Reply Br. 4; see id. at 2-3. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16 and claims 21, 22, and 3 3, which depend therefrom, as unpatentable over Yamada, Martins, Raun, and Jia (Rejection II). The rejection of claims 31 and 32, which depend from claim 16, is based on Yamada, Martins, Raun, and Jia in combination with Lifson, and relies on the findings and reasoning discussed above. See Final Act. 8-9. This rejection is not cured by any findings and/ or reasoning associated therewith. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 31 7 Appeal2018-006512 Application 13/984, 174 and 32 as unpatentable over Yamada, Martins, Raun, Jia, and Lifson (Rejection III). The rejection of independent claims 34 and 42 is based on Yamada, Martins, Raun, Jia, and Yao. The Examiner's rejection of these independent claims suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of claim 16. See Final Act. 12-13. This deficiency is not cured by any findings and/or reasoning associated therewith. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 34 and 42, and claims 35-38, 40, 41, 43--45, 47, and 48, which depend directly from one of claims 34 or 42, as unpatentable over Yamada, Martins, Raun, Jia, and Yao (Rejection IV). DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16, 21, 22, 31-38, 40-45, 47, and 48. REVERSED 8