Daikin Industries, Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 12, 20202019005544 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020) 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. 14/228,105 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation