Appeal 2007-1444
Application 10/732,497
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Scoccia.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that Scoccia does not disclose determining an amount of
refrigerant loss nor does it teach determining a percentage of refrigerant charge
loss (Corrected Br. 4-5). The Examiner contends that Scoccia determines the
amount of refrigerant loss “that will require a warning of low refrigerant, whether
it is expressed as a percentage of total or just an amount that requires system
serving.” (Answer 3). Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). The issue before us is whether Appellants
have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Scoccia.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. Scoccia discloses a system and method for low refrigerant charge
detection before and during compressor operation. Before compressor
operation, the system indicates whether or not the refrigerant charge level
is acceptable for compressor operation to begin. During compressor
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013