Appeal 2007-1444
Application 10/732,497
that requires the compressor to be stopped when the pressure is determined for a
given ambient temperature.” (Answer 4).
Scoccia describes determining a low refrigerant level based on comparing
measured pressure with a minimum allowable pressure, which is a function of
measured ambient temperature. Scoccia provides an indication of whether actual
pressure is above or below minimum allowable pressure, but does not show by
how much or determine a corresponding amount of refrigerant charge loss on an
absolute or percentage basis. Thus, Scoccia fails to anticipate claim 20, because it
does not teach determining an amount of refrigerant charge loss from the system
based upon the difference between the expected pressure and the determined
equilibrium pressure (Finding of Fact 4).
With respect to claim 21, Examiner argues that: “It is inherent in the
determination of the amount of refrigerant loss that requires the compressor to be
stopped that the loss will be a percentage of the total amount of refrigerant in a
fully charged system.” (Answer 3). Because Scoccia does not in fact disclose
determination of the amount of refrigerant loss (Finding of Fact 4), the Examiner
cannot rely on that determination as the basis for the inherency of determining a
percentage of refrigerant charge loss, which is nowhere disclosed in Scoccia.
Scoccia thus fails to anticipate claim 21, because it does not disclose determining a
percentage of refrigerant charge loss. The rejection of claims 20 and 21 as
anticipated by Scoccia therefore is improper, because Scoccia does not disclose
each and every limitation as set forth in claims 20 and 21, either expressly or
inherently.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013