Ex Parte Troutman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12750902 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121750,902 03/31/2010
29052 7590 04/28/2016
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
999 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E.
Suite 2300
ATLANTA, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Troutman
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.
30369-0005 9642
EXAMINER
MENDOZA-WILKENFE, ERIK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
patent. docket@sutherland.com
pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN TROUTMAN, CHRIS JENTZSCH,
DUSTAN ATKINSON, and LINDSAY HARRY
Appeal2014-003438
Application 12/750,092
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-9 and 16-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Heatcraft Refrigeration
Products LLC." (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-003438
Application 12/750,092
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention "relates to an integrated spray system for
use with microchannel coils so as to wash the coils and also to provide
cooling." (Spec. i-f 102.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A microchannel coil assembly, comprising:
a frame;
a plurality of microchannel coils positioned within the
frame; and
a microchannel coil spray system positioned about the
frame and above the plurality of microchannel coils so as to
provide a cooling spray.
Stover
McKee
Merkys
References
us 3,903,213
US 6,655,162 B2
US 2005/0161202 Al
Rejections
Sept. 2, 1975
Dec. 2, 2003
July 28, 2005
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stover and Merkys. (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stover, Merkys, and McKee. (Id. at 4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stover and Merkys. (Id. at 6.)
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stover, Merkys, and McKee. (Id. at 8.)
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 8-10 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-003438
Application 12/750,092
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires a spray system to provide "a cooling
spray." (Claims App.) Independent claim 16 similarly requires spray
nozzles to provide "a cooling spray." (Id.) The Examiner finds that Stover
teaches a system with spray nozzles that "provide a cooling spray (water)."
(Final Action 3.) The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the
Examiner errs in finding that Stover's water spray can be considered the
claimed cooling spray.
The Appellants argue that Stover "simply does not show a cooling
spray as is claimed herein." (Appeal Br. 7.) According to the Appellants,
Stover describes an "evaporative cooling technique." (Id. at 5.) Also,
according to the Appellants, in Stover "warm water [is] sprayed on the
condenser [resulting in] cool water and hot air," "the temperature of the
water decreases from the spray to the sump," and "the water loses heat
instead of accepting heat." (Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded by these arguments because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Appellants do not identify,
and we do not find, limitations in the claim language that preclude the
cooling spray from participating in an evaporative cooling technique, that
exclude the use of warm water as the cooling spray, that require an increase
in the temperature of the cooling spray, and/or that specify that the cooling
spray accepts heat from the coils or elsewhere.
Moreover, the Specification states that the Appellants' illustrated
spray system 300 "may function in a manner similar to an evaporative
condenser in that providing the spray 330 to the condensing surface may
increase the overall capacity therein by removing additional heat from the
3
Appeal2014-003438
Application 12/750,092
microchannel coils 110." (Spec. if 134.) The Appellants do not dispute that,
in the "evaporative condenser" shown in Stover's Figure 7 (Stover, col. 6,
lines 48--49), water spray is provided to the condensing surface for the
purpose of removing heat from coil 54. In other words, the purpose of
Stover's water spray is to cool coil 54; and thus we see no error in the
Examiner's finding that Stover's water spray can be considered the claimed
cooling spray. 3
The Appellants do not argue that the Examiner errs otherwise; and so
we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stover and Merkys; and we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Stover, Merkys, and McKee.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 16-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 The Appellants do not point to, and we do not find, statements in the
Specification conveying that, even in a preferred embodiment, the cooling
spray is released at a not-warm temperature, that the cooling spray increases
in temperature somewhere in the cleaning/cooling process, and/or that the
cooling spray accepts heat (as opposed to just removing heat) from the
condenser coils. In fact, we find little to no description in the Specification
regarding the fate of the Appellants' cleaning/cooling spray once it is
released from the spray nozzles.
4