Ex Parte Turner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12903298 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
12/903,298 10/13/2010 Lynn A. Turner PA-0010388-US-AA 3673
87059 7590
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
CRENSHAW, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LYNN A. TURNER and RAJENDRA K. SHAH
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
5 and 8—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a refrigerant system with stator heater.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A refrigerant system adapted to reduce refrigerant
migration therein, the system comprising:
a compressor having a motor with motor windings, the
motor windings responsive to control signals to selectively
generate heat in a manner that does not turn the motor; and
a controller that selectively energizes the motor windings
to generate heat based on at least one of a monitored temperature
or pressure to warm the compressor;
wherein the monitored temperature or pressure comprises
at least one of a sensed outdoor air temperature, an outdoor coil
temperature, an outdoor suction temperature, an indoor air
temperature, an indoor unit return air temperature, an outdoor
suction pressure, a motor stator temperature, an inverter drive
temperature or an internal compressor temperature;
wherein the controller monitors the inverter drive
temperature and the internal compressor temperature and
selectively energizes the motor windings to generate heat based
on whether the inverter drive temperature in1 less than a
minimum inverter drive temperature and the internal compressor
temperature is less than at least one of a minimum indoor air
temperature, a minimum outdoor air temperature and a minimum
internal compressor temperature.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sakazume US 4,638,643 Jan. 27, 1987
Helt US 4,720,981 Jan. 26, 1988
1 The term “in” as used at this location in claims 1 and 16 appears to be a
typographical error. It is apparent from the surrounding context that the
intended term should be “is” rather than “in.” Accordingly, in construing
claims 1 and 16, we shall interpret the noted term “in” as being “is.”
2
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
Katsuragi
Kodama
Kawakatu
Sasaki
Jayanth
US 4,808,896 Feb. 28, 1989
US 5,752,655 May 19, 1998
US 6,405,554 B1 June 18, 2002
US 7,954,334 B2 June 7, 2011
US 8,036,853 B2 Oct. 11,2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—5, 8, 9, 11—13, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, and Helt.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, Helt, and Jayanth.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, Helt, and Kodama.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, Helt, Kawakatu, Jayanth, and
Sasaki.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, Helt, Kodama, and Sasaki.
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 8, 9, and 11—13 as a
group. App. Br. 4—8. Likewise, Appellants argue the rejection of claims 16,
18, and 19 as a group, offering arguments in support of the patentability of
independent claim 16 nearly identical to those for independent claim 1. Id.
at 8—12. Appellants argue the patentability of dependent claims 2, 10, 14,
15, 17, and 20 based only on their respective dependencies on claim 1 or
claim 16. Id. at 12.
OPINION
3
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
The Examiner finds that Sakazume discloses a refrigerant system
adapted to reduce refrigerant migration therein comprising a compressor and
a controller as recited in claims 1 and 16. Final Act. 3. Regarding the
limitations
wherein the monitored refrigerant system temperature or
pressure comprises at least one of a sensed outdoor air
temperature, an outdoor coil temperature, an outdoor suction
temperature, an indoor air temperature, an indoor unit return air
temperature, an outdoor suction pressure, a motor stator
temperature, an inverter drive temperature or an internal
compressor temperature
the Examiner relies on Sakazume, Figure 3, blocks 202 and 206. Id.
As for the limitations
wherein the controller monitors the inverter drive temperature
and the internal compressor temperature and selectively
energizes the motor windings to generate heat based on whether
the inverter drive temperature is less than a minimum inverter
drive temperature and the internal compressor temperature is less
than at least one of a minimum indoor air temperature, a
minimum outdoor air temperature, and a minimum inverter drive
temperature and a minimum internal compressor temperature
the Examiner states: “Sakazume teaches monitoring the temperature of the
compressor shell via a thermistor (17) attached to the external case of the
compressor, and using ambient temperatures and compressor temperatures in
the control of the pre-heating step (Fig. 7, 202 and 206).” Id.
The Examiner relies on Katsuragi as teaching the use of an inverter
(see Katsuragi, Fig. 2, ref. 20) and the concept of a minimum internal
temperature of the compressor/oil determining the need to generate heat. Id.
at 4.
The Examiner relies on Helt for teaching “that [] ‘The reliability and
life of inverter drive and other control components is to a significant degree
4
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
dependent upon precluding such components from operating at high
temperatures and/or precluding their exposure to thermal shock. Final
Act. 4 (citing Helt 7:3—10).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Sakazume in view of Katsuragi “to provide an inverter, the motivation being
to provide variable speed compressor capability, and to also measure the
internal compressor/oil temperature (as opposed to the shell temperature
measurement in Sakazume) so as to assure the internal compressor/oil is at
the correct temperature level for starting.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner
additionally concludes that it would have further been obvious “to measure
the inverter temperature, in view of Helt, the motivation being to determine
if starting the system at a given temperature might induce thermal shock and
thermal stresses that could reduce the operating life of the inverter.” Id. at
4-5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
16 as being unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, and Helt for several
reasons:
First, Appellants contend that Sakazume fails to disclose, inter alia,
“selectively energizes the motor windings to generate heat based on whether
the inverter drive temperature [is] less than a minimum inverter drive
temperature” as recited in claim 1. Br. 6, 10.
Second, Appellants contend that Katsuragi “relates to energizing
motor windings in a deep-sea electric motor to maintain viscosity. Katsurgai
[sic] arguably uses the ambient water temperature to determine when to
apply the energizing current. Katsurgai [sic] heats the oil to ‘reduce startup
torque and current drain due to otherwise viscous nature of the cold oil.’”
Id. (citing Katsuragi 1:6—12). As such, Appellants maintain that Katsuragi is
5
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
non-analogous art in that it (1) is not in the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention, and (2) is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced
by Appellants, namely, the migration and accumulation of refrigerant in an
oil sump of a compressor and the resulting oil loss upon start-up of the
compressor. App. Br. 6—7, 10-11.
Third, Appellants contend that Helt discloses turning off a compressor
when an inverter mounting block is too hot rather than energizing the
compressor motor when the inverter is too cold, i.e., selectively energizing
the motor windings to generate heat based on whether the inverter drive
temperature in less than a minimum inverter drive temperature. App. Br. 7,
11 (citing Helt 6:58—7:7).
As for Appellants’ first argument, the Examiner points out that
Sakazume is relied on “to demonstrate that it is known in the prior art that a
compressor having a motor with motor windings can be responsive to
control signals to selectively generate heat in a manner that does not turn the
motor.” Ans. 2. As will be discussed below, it is Helt and not Sakazume
that is relied on by the Examiner for teaching of selectively energizing the
motor windings to generate heat based on whether the inverter drive
temperature is less than a minimum inverter drive temperature.
Regarding Appellants’ second argument, the Examiner and Appellants
appear to agree on the legal standards for determining analogous art.2
However, focusing on the second prong of the analogous art test, the
Examiner and Appellants define the problems with which Appellants and
2 “(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in
the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” See MPEP
§ 2141.01(a) (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
6
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
Katsuragi were concerned very differently. Appellants contend, “Katsurgai
[sic] is not reasonably pertinent to the problem of reducing refrigerant
migration to a compressor. Katsurgai [sic] is directed to the problem of
maintaining oil temperature in an electric machine above a desired level.'1'’
App. Br. 7, 10-11 (emphasis added). The Examiner, on the other hand,
takes a much broader view of the problem: “the control of any one or all of
these three components, based upon their temperatures, and in particular to
overcome problems associated with cold starting a system, is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the appellants.” Ans. 4—5 (emphasis
added).
As pointed out in § 2141.01(a) of the MPEP cited by the Examiner,
the problem to be solved should not be viewed in a narrow or constrained
way, for example by limiting it to the problem as it is explicitly stated in the
Specification. Limiting the problem in this way would effectively enable an
applicant to unduly restrict the scope of prior art that may be relied upon in
an obviousness analysis. Similarly, the problems explicitly stated in the
prior art references cited do not necessarily control the problems, which the
teachings of those references may be considered reasonably pertinent to
solving. “[Fjamiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
purposes.” KSRInt'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
When we consider the scope of the disclosure and, in particular, of the
claimed subject matter, we are unable to identify anything particularly
unique to reducing refrigerant migration other than the operating
environment—a compressor. Indeed, the only limitation placed in the
claims specifically related to this benefit is the statement in the preamble
“adapted to reduce refrigerant migration therein.” The remainder of the
claim includes only elements relating to heat generation. Similarly, the
7
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
Specification, taken as a whole, is concerned with temperature-dependent
preheating a cold compressor. Ultimately, “reducing refrigerant migration”
relates not to the particular problem solved, but the results or benefits
associated with solving the problem of cold-starting a compressor in a
refrigerant system environment.
Similarly, the viscous nature of cold oil and lack of startup torque in
Katsuragi are the results or effects of problems associated with cold-starting
generic electric motors. App. Br. 7, 10—11 (citing Katsuragi col. 1,11. 6—12).
The problem itself is more accurately characterized as cold starting.
Katsuragi is concerned mainly with motors used for propulsion, or pumping
liquid. Although the rotational output is used for different purposes, we are
not apprised of any major mechanical distinctions rendering inapplicable
teachings associated with motors employed for driving pumps to those
associated with motors employed for driving compressors. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that references such as Katsuragi, which relate
to solving problems associated with cold-starting generic electric motors,
would have logically commended themselves to an inventor’s attention
when considering the problem of cold-start operation of a compressor.
Regarding Appellant’s third argument, we agree with the Examiner
that Appellants are arguing the merits of the references individually rather
than what they teach as a whole. Ans. 5—6. It is true that Helt is concerned
with overheating as opposed to preheating. App. Br. 7, 11; Helt col. 7,11. 5—
7. But preheating was already established as a known technique by the other
cited references, Sakazume and Katsuragi. Helt was cited by the Examiner
to demonstrate that it was known to use the compressor speed control
components, undisputedly regarded by the Examiner as including the recited
“inverter drive,” as a basis for making the thermally protective
8
Appeal 2015-005718
Application 12/903,298
determination. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Helt col. 6,1. 68—col. 7,1. 7); Ans. 6—7.
Further, both Appellants and Helt identify the same reason for using the
inverter as a basis for performing the temperature mitigation determination:
“The methods also protect the electrical components of an inverter device
from an overheat condition.” Spec. para. 19. We are not apprised of any
reasonable basis to conclude that one skilled in the art would view Helt’s
teachings as narrowly as Appellants suggest, by limiting Helt’s applicability
to only those systems concerned exclusively with overheating as opposed to
preheating. Obviousness must be judged in view of the combined teachings
of the references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.” In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 16 as unpatentable over Sakazume, Katsuragi, and Helt. We
also sustain the rejections of those claims not separately argued or argued
based only on dependency.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5 and 8—20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9