Daikin Industries, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 12, 2020

14228105 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020)

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.
14/228,105 03/27/2014 Hironori HAYAKAWA DK-US140176 3420
22919 7590 05/12/2020
GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP
David Tarnoff
1233 20TH STREET, NW
Suite 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680
EXAMINER
ZEC, FILIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2020 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):
mailpto@giplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HIRONORI HAYAKAWA
____________

Appeal 2019-005544
Application 14/228,105
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 19,
2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed August 27, 2018 (“Final

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Daikin Industries,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005544
Application 14/228,105

2
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 27, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 19, 2019 (“Ans.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a heat source unit of a
refrigerating apparatus. Spec. 1:4. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below from pages 23–24 (Claims Appendix) of the
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A heat source unit of a refrigerating apparatus,
comprising
a heat exchanger;
a blower;
an electronic component configured to control driving of
an actuator;
a casing housing the heat exchanger, the blower, and the
electronic component, the casing having a vent configured and
arranged to vent air upward; and
first and second partitioning plates disposed in the casing,
the heat exchanger having
a first side face part,
a second side face part adjoining the first side face
part,
a third side face part opposing the first side face
part and adjoining the second side face part, and
a fourth side face part opposing the second side
face part and adjoining the third side face part,
the first partitioning plate being disposed between the
first side face part and the fourth side face part, the first
partitioning plate being configured and arranged to extend
along a vertical direction that is a direction at which an angle
between a vertical line is 0° to within 30° and that intersects a
horizontal direction that is a direction at which an angle
between a horizontal line is 0° to within 30°,
Appeal 2019-005544
Application 14/228,105

3
an interior of the casing having
a first space surrounded by the first side face part,
the second side face part, the third side face part, the
fourth side face part and the first partitioning plate, and
a second space partitioned from the first space by
the first partitioning plate,
the second space being divided by the second partitioning
plate into a third space, and a fourth space situated below the
third space and is exposed externally from the casing, the
electronic component being disposed in the third space,
a side of the fourth space being open to outside of the
casing,
the second partitioning plate having a first ventilation
opening communicating between the third space and the fourth
space formed therein,
the blower being disposed in the first space, and
an air flow path configured to communicate between the
first space and the third space being formed in the casing.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Loving US 4,153,310 May 8, 1979
Martin US 2007/0163295 A1 July 19, 2007
Yamane EP 1 684 022 A1 July 26, 2006
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Martin and Loving.
II. Claims 2–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martin, Loving, and Yamane.
Appeal 2019-005544
Application 14/228,105

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Martin and Loving
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Martin discloses, in
relevant part, “the second partitioning plate (143, FIG. 4C and 5) having a
first ventilation opening (in two corners by edges 132 and 134, FIG. 4C and
5) communicating between the third space (behind the cover 130, FIG. 4A)
and the fourth space (below 143, FIG. 4A and 4C) formed therein.” Final
Act. 4. Referring to an annotated reproduction of Martin’s Figure 5
(“FIG. X”) on page 13 of the Final Action, the Examiner takes the position
that the illustrated circular features of “partition 143 comprise[] at least two
holes which provide fluid connection between the third and fourth spaces.”
Id. at 14.
Appellant argues that, “[b]ased on the drawings alone (because there
is no description in the specification), the circular features do not appear to
be openings that pass entirely through the back plate and through the flange
143, respectively.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that
flange 143 has a thickness (i.e., in the vertical direction), and
the box 140 has a rearward depth (i.e., from the front of the
flange 143 to the rear of the back plate). However, neither of
the circular features is illustrated with a depth, such that the
circular features in FIG. 5 of Martin do not appear to be
openings passing through the respective members.
Id.
Martin discloses that Figure 4C is an exploded perspective view of a
system according to the invention, and Figure 5 is a perspective view of
parts of the system. Martin ¶¶ 28, 33. Martin discloses box 140 for
electrical components, and box 140 includes flange 143 that holds
removable cover 130 in place. Id. ¶ 47. However, as Appellant correctly
Appeal 2019-005544
Application 14/228,105

5
observes, Martin is silent as to the circular features of flange 143 shown in
the figures. See Appeal Br. 13 (asserting that “[t]here is no description in
Martin regarding the circular features in the flange 143 and back plate
shown in FIG. 5”). The Examiner responds that Loving provides evidence
that Martin’s depicted circular features represent holes. Ans. 16 (citing
Loving, Fig. 4). The Examiner takes the position that,
In FIG. 4 of Loving, element 52 is equivalent of the first
ventilation opening in FIG. X above and is described as high
voltage field wiring entrance (col 3, lines 23–27). Thus, the
circle in FIG. X is indeed correctly interpreted as a through
hole, even though the actual drawing does not provide depth
depiction.
Id.2 However, even assuming, arguendo, that the circular features shown in
Martin’s figures are holes, the evidence of record would only support a
finding that the holes are openings through which high voltage wiring is fed
for powering the components of the air conditioning system. Claim 1 recites
a ventilation opening. The Examiner does not point to, nor do we discern,
any disclosure in the cited references to support a finding that the circular
features depicted in Martin’s figures are openings for ventilation, nor does
the Examiner explain adequately how an opening through which high
voltage wiring is fed would also allow ventilation therethrough. The
Examiner’s finding that Martin discloses a “through hole” does not explain
adequately how the through hole is a ventilation opening.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Martin and Loving.

2 Loving discloses that “high voltage field wiring entrance provided in the
shelf 36 is designated 52.” Loving, 3:25–26.
Appeal 2019-005544
Application 14/228,105

6
Rejection II – Obviousness based on Martin, Loving, and Yamane
The rejection of independent claims 11 and 12, and claims 2–10,
which depend from independent claim 1, relies on the same proposed
combination of Martin and Loving that we find deficient for the reasons
discussed above in connection with Rejection I. See Final Act. 4–12. The
Examiner relies on Yamane for teaching additional features, but does not
articulate any findings or reasoning that would remedy the aforementioned
deficiency in the combination of Martin and Loving. See id. Accordingly,
for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
2–12 as being unpatentable over Martin, Loving, and Yamane.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Martin, Loving, 1
2–12 103 Martin, Loving,
Yamane
2–12
Overall Outcome 1–12
REVERSED