Ex Parte Ueda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2018

12985453 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/985,453 01/06/2011 Kenji Ueda 38834 7590 05/25/2018 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP 8500 Leesburg Pike SUITE 7500 Tysons, VA 22182 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. 101560 4380 EXAMINER FURDGE, LARRY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2018 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): patentmail@whda.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENJI UEDA and MINORU MATSUO Appeal 2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kenji Ueda and Minoru Matsuo (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4. Appellants' representative presented oral argument on May 15, 2018. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosure is directed to "a heat pump and a method for calculating the heating-medium flow rate of a heat pump." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 8 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heat pump comprising: a first heat exchanger that cools or heats a heating medium flowing from an external load; a second heat exchanger that exchanges heat with outside air or cooling water; a coolant circulation path through which a coolant is circulated between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger; a turbo-compressor provided in the coolant circulation path; a differential-pressure measuring part for measuring a differential pressure between an inlet-side pressure and an outlet-side pressure of the heating medium in the first heat exchanger; and a control part storing a loss factor unique to the first heat exchanger, for calculating a flow rate of the heating medium in the first heat exchanger on the basis of the loss factor and the differential pressure output from the differential-pressure measuring part, wherein the control part performs control using the flow rate of the heating medium and transmits the flow rate of the heating medium to facility-side equipment, and the control part obtains a correction term depending on the measurement delay time of the outlet-side pressure according to the amount of the heating medium held in the first 2 Appeal2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 heat exchanger on the basis of a flow rate at the present time and the amount of the heating medium held, and corrects the flow rate of the heating medium using the correction term. REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenji, 2 Ohmi, 3 and Koyata. 4 Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenji, Ohmi, Goubeaux, 5 and Crow. 6 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 4 Appellants present arguments for claims 1 and 4 collectively. See Br. 4---6. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claim 4 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Kenji discloses a heat pump comprising first and second heat exchangers, a coolant circulation path, and a turbo- compressor as recited in claim 1, but does not disclose a differential-pressure measuring part or a control part as required by claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner relies on Ohmi to teach the use of a differential-pressure measuring part and a control part that stores a loss factor for calculating a flow rate of the heating medium, performs control using the flow rate, and 2 JP 2009300008 A, published Dec. 24, 2009. 3 US 2006/0236781 Al, published Oct. 26, 2006. 4 JP H0526708 A, published Feb. 2, 1993. 5 US 5,009,074, issued Apr. 23, 1991. 6 US 2006/0090467 Al, published May 4, 2006. 3 Appeal2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 transmits the flow rate to facility-side equipment. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner relies on Koyata to teach the use of a control part that obtains a correction term depending on measurement delay time according to the amount of fluid held in a mass flow meter on the basis of flow rate at the present time and the amount of heating medium held, and that corrects the flow rate using the correction term. Id. at 4 (citing Koyata i-fi-f l, 2, 5, 6, 30, Figs. 1, 2)7; see also Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use these teachings ofKoyata in Kenji's heat pump "to provide a more accurate flow-rate measurement" as taught by Koyata. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further reasons that such a skilled artisan "would recognize that 'time' and 'the amount of fluid' in a flow meter are parameters considered when calculating flow rate through a flow meter." Id. at 7. Appellants traverse the rejection. According to Appellants, Koyata teaches a correction term using "the time of zero flow rate as a time difference between output signals" and Koyata's "time difference at the time of zero flow rate corresponds to the 'correction term' recited in claim 1." Br. 4--5 (emphases omitted). Therefore, Appellants argue, Koyata does not teach a correction term as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5. 7 We note that both the Examiner and Appellants cite to an English machine translation of Koyata that is part of the record. See Non-Final Act. (mailed Nov. 22, 2013). We, likewise, cite to the translation. We further note that the Examiner cites to "Drawing 3," which we interpret to mean reference to Figure 2 because the drawing figures are not provided in numerical order, and the third drawing figure (which illustrates the components cited by the Examiner) is labeled "Drawing 2." 4 Appeal2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Koyata discloses a mass flowmeter that determines and corrects for time lag errors through the meter during use. The time lag (and associated "working error") is initially determined when no flow is passing through the flowmeter, and this value is stored as a "zero point." Koyata i-fi-1 31, 3 8-3 9. The calculated flow rate is a function of time lag due to fluid passing through the flow meter. Id. i1 30. Although the time lag is measured due to the relative twist angle between the flowing fluid and tubes 2, 3, the "twist angle is proportional to a mass flow rate." Id. i129. Koyata's system includes flow rate measuring part 13 having time difference detection circuit 14 that detects time lag from pickups 9, 10 while fluid is flowing through the meter, and calculating part 15 that calculates the flow rate based in part on the detected time lag. Id. i-fi-127, 30. The time lag measurements from a fixed period of time (e.g., 10 seconds) are stored in memory 18, and equalizing section 19 computes the average time lag. Id. i1 31. Determination circuit 21 determines if the memorized time lag is within an acceptable range of the initial zero point. Id. i-fi-1 34, 41. If not, latch part 20 provides the calculated average time lag from equalizing section 19 to calculating part 15 as an updated zero point. Id. i-fi-134, 36. A new zero set point can also be forced by activating switch 25. Id. i154. Thus, Koyata updates the correction term based on flow rate at the present time rather than merely relying on the initial zero point as asserted by Appellants. Appellants next argue that "it is well-known that the Coriolis flow meter disclosed in Koyata is relatively expensive" and the inclusion of a 5 Appeal2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 Coriolis flow meter in Kenji's heat pump would contradict Appellants' objective "to provide a heat pump and a method for calculating the heating- medium flow rate of a heat pump capable of obtaining the heating-medium flow rate with sufficient accuracy even if an inexpensive differential pressure sensor is used." Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because, as stated by the Examiner, "an expensive Coriolis flow meter was not used in the modification of Kenji." Ans. 4. Instead, the Examiner relies on Ohmi to teach the inclusion of a differential-pressure measuring part and a control part, and the Examiner relies on Koyata to teach a way of operating Ohmi' s control part. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error because they do not address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Finally, Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kenji and Ohmi to include a Coriolis flow meter ... is unsupported and based on impermissible hindsight." Br. 6. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because, as discussed above, the Examiner's rejection does not propose to include a Coriolis flowmeter. Appellants do not address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner, and, therefore, fail to apprise us of error. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4. To the extent Appellants presented additional arguments in the oral hearing, such new arguments are untimely and will not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.47(e). 6 Appeal2016-005422 Application 12/985,453 Claim 3 Appellant does not make any substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claim 3, relying instead solely on its dependence from claim 1. Br. 6. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 3. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, and 4 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7