General Electric CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 19, 20212020004462 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/508,247 10/07/2014 Craig lung-Pei Tsai 275005-1/GECA-634 8269 141821 7590 04/19/2021 Dority & Manning, P.A. and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER BARGERO, JOHN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2021 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): usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CRAIG IUNG-PEI TSAI ____________ Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 12–21.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 8 and 11 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A water heater appliance comprising: a tank defining an interior volume; and a sealed system for heating water within the interior volume of the tank, the sealed system comprising a compressor operable to compress a refrigerant; a first condenser positioned downstream of and in fluid communication with the compressor; a second condenser positioned downstream of and in fluid communication with the compressor, the first and second condensers each operable to heat water within the interior volume of the tank using energy from the refrigerant; and a valve in fluid communication with the first condenser and the second condenser, the sealed system defining a ratio of refrigerant flow between the first condenser and the second condenser, the valve configured to vary the ratio of refrigerant flow between the first condenser and the second condenser from a value of 100:0 to a value of 0:100 and at least one value therebetween; and an expansion device, wherein the valve is a variable flow splitting valve, and wherein the variable flow splitting valve is the only variable flow splitting valve positioned downstream of the first condenser and second condenser and upstream of the expansion device. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 3 Name Reference Date Silva US 2,716,866 Sept. 6, 1955 Harmon US 2005/0109490 A1 May 26, 2005 Yokoyama US 2007/0271942 A1 Nov. 29, 2007 Nelson US 8,422,870 B2 Apr. 16, 2013 THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 13–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Silva, Yokoyama, and Harmon. Final Act. 3–9. II. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Silva, Yokoyama, Harmon, and Nelson. Id. at 9. OPINION Rejection I – Obviousness based on Silva, Yokoyama, and Harmon In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments for independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4–13), relies on the same arguments for independent claim 13 (id. at 13), and does not separately argue dependent claims 2–7, 9, 10, and 14–21. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2–7, 9, 10, and 13–21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Silva discloses a water heater including a tank (10, 12) and a sealed system comprising a refrigerant compressor (19, 20), a first condenser (24), a second condenser (25), and an expansion device (23). Final Act. 3 (citing Silva, Fig. 1). The Examiner finds that Silva discloses two separate valves (36, 37) that act as at least a three-way valve, allowing for a flow path of refrigerant (35) to flow in one of at least three paths, through 36 alone, or through 37 alone, or Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 4 through both 36 and 37[], but does not disclose the particular singular valve. Id. However, the Examiner finds that Yokoyama teaches “a variable flow splitting valve ([0073], 18), and wherein the variable flow splitting valve is the only variable flow splitting valve positioned downstream of the first condenser and second condenser and upstream of the expansion device.” Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to include a three-way variable flow valve, as taught by Yokoyama, with the water heater of Silva for the purpose of simplifying the control system and wiring and to provide better thermal control over the condensing element which would prevent stratification and ensure that the tank is heating evenly without over shooting or under shooting the desired temperatures. Id. The Examiner also finds that the combination of Silva and Yokohama “does not disclose the location of the valve being downstream of the first condenser and second condenser and upstream of the expansion device.” Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner finds that Harmon teaches “a heat pump water heater (Abstract) wherein the shut off valves (13, Figure 1) [are] downstream of a condenser (3) and upstream of the expansion device (7, [0038]).” Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to locate the valves either upstream or downstream of the expansion valve as a rearrangement of parts, as taught by Harmon, to control flow to and from the condenser.” Id.; see also id. at 2 (the Examiner concluding that it would have been obvious “to locate the valve either upstream or downstream of the condensers”). Appellant argues that Harmon fails to disclose a variable flow splitting valve. Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, none of the cited Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 5 references teaches the claimed valve configuration with “the variable flow splitting valve . . . positioned downstream of both the first and second condensers 124, 126 and upstream of the expansion device 128.” Id. at 10. This argument is unpersuasive because it attacks the references individually, rather than as combined by the Examiner in the rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of the references). As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Yokoyama for teaching a variable flow splitting valve. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Harmon only for teaching the positioning of valves downstream of a condenser and upstream of an expansion device. Id. In other words, the Examiner does not find that a singular reference discloses the claimed valve configuration, but, rather, the Examiner determines that such a configuration would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Silva, Yokoyama, and Harmon. Appellant argues that it would not be obvious to modify Silva to achieve the claimed valve configuration, as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts that Harmon “does not provide any teaching for moving the valves 36, 37 of Silva downstream of the respective condensers 24, 25.” Id. at 11 (underlining omitted). Appellant asserts that Harmon “fails to provide any reasoning for moving the valves 36, 37 of Silva, as the valves of Harmon . . . are addressing different issues that would most likely not be present in the system of Silva.” Id. (underlining omitted); see also id. (asserting that Harmon teaches “closing off a component in a very different system using two separate two way valve[s], i.e., valve 12 and 13, each at an upstream location when in use to address an efficiency issue Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 6 unique to that system”). According to Appellant, Harmon “would encourage a person of ordinary skill in the art to keep the valve positioning in [Silva] to ensure the system of Silva is not susceptible to the same inefficiencies combatted by the inclusion of valve 13 in Harmon . . . (albeit to a lesser degree).” Id. at 12 (underlining omitted). We are not persuaded by this line of argument. Appellant appears to insist on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Harmon for the Examiner’s proposed modification of Silva, whereas such an argument has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 419 (2007) (stating that a rigid insistence on teaching, suggestion, or motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness). Rather, the Court requires that we look to whether the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Here, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings as to why it would have been obvious to modify Silva’s water heater to have a singular three-way variable valve downstream of the condensers. See Final Act. 4 (explaining that replacing Silva’s valves with a single three-way variable flow valve would simplify the control system and provide better thermal control of the condensers, and that moving the valve upstream of Silva’s condensers would be a mere rearrangement of parts for controlling flow to and from the condensers). The Examiner also reasons that “[h]eat pump systems commonly have control valves located either upstream or downstream of the condensers and so this would have been an obvious modification.” Ans. 10; see also id. at Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 7 11 (explaining that “locating valves upstream or downstream of condensers is a common practice [in] the field of heat pump circuits and has no criticality in the Applicant’s invention”). The Examiner’s proposed modification to place a valve downstream of the first and second condenser and upstream of the expansion device does not appear to be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor yield more than a predictable result in controlling flow to and from the condensers. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Appellant’s argument does not explain adequately why the Examiner’s reasoning is deficient. Moreover, Appellant does not proffer any evidence or technical reasoning to support the position that modifying Silva’s valve location as proposed by the Examiner would make Silva susceptible to inefficiencies. See Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s unsupported assertion is mere attorney argument, which cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Appellant argues that Silva teaches away from “moving the valves 36, 37 to a location downstream of the first and second condensers 24, 25, respectively, and upstream of the expansion device 23.” Appeal Br. 12. Referring to column 1, lines 53–63 of Silva, Appellant asserts that it is the intention of Silva to ensure complete delivery of the compressed refrigerant gasses to the desired condenser to provide for a more efficient heater appliance. If the valves 36, 37 were moved to a downstream location, during operation, the compressed refrigerant gasses would be able to flow at least partially into the non-utilized condenser, reducing an efficiency of the system. Therefore, moving the valves 36, 37 in the manner suggested by the Examiner would frustrate the purpose of Silva. Id. at 13 (underlining omitted). This argument is not persuasive. Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 8 Silva discloses that an object of the invention is to provide an improved thermal control system that delivers all of the compressed gaseous refrigerant to the first condenser until obtaining a complete temperature recovery of the water in the upper tank portion, and, then, delivers all of the compressed gaseous refrigerant to the second condenser until obtaining a complete temperature recovery of the water in the lower tank portion. Silva, 1:53–63. It is not clear how this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from the Examiner’s proposal to modify Silva to replace valves 36, 37, which are located upstream of the condensers, with a single variable flow splitting valve located downstream of the condensers. Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any disclosure in Silva criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the modification proposed by the Examiner in the rejection. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed). The fact that Silva’s valves 36, 37 are positioned upstream of the condensers does not constitute a teaching away from the Examiner’s proposal to replace these valves with a three-way variable flow splitting valve located downstream of the condensers. Moreover, the Examiner takes the position that, “there will be residual refrigerant in the condenser coils and other piping of the system” and “[t]he backpressure of the condenser coil that was just switch[ed] off would prevent addition[al] refrigerant to flow into it.” Ans. 11–12. In addition, according to the Examiner, “even if a de[ ]minimis amount of refrigerant were allowed to enter the non[-]active condenser coil, the resultant thermal Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 9 efficiency loss would be negligible.” Id. 12. In this regard, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s position. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–7, 9, 10, and 13–21 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Silva, Yokoyama, and Harmon. Rejection II – Obviousness based on Silva, Yokoyama, Harmon, and Nelson With respect to Rejection II, Appellant does not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the arguments discussed above with respect to Rejection I. See generally Appeal Br. Thus, for the same reasons that Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection I, Appellant also does not apprise us of error in Rejection II. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Silva, Yokoyama, Harmon, Nelson. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9, 10, 13–21 103 Silva, Yokoyama, Harmon 1–7, 9, 10, 13–21 12 103 Silva, Yokoyama, Harmon, Nelson 12 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21 Appeal 2020-004462 Application 14/508,247 10 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation