Ex Parte Abrahamian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 201711340115 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2017) 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. 11/340,115 01/26/2006 David J. Abrahamian IRND-973 8321 123446 7590 10/26/2017 Ingersoll-Rand Company Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP One Indiana Square Suite 3500 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023 EXAMINER SCHERMERHORN, JON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2017 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): taft-ip-docket @ taftlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID J. ABRAHAMIAN and KEVIN M. CONROY Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, and 33—46, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to heat exchangers of the fm-and-tube type with an improved louver configuration (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A heat exchanger, comprising: a plurality of rows of tubes intersecting a plurality of substantially planar fins, each of the fins comprising: a first side; a second side opposite the first side; an upstream bank of louvers configured to direct fluid only from the first side of the fin to the second side of the fin as the fluid passes along the fin past at least a first row of the plurality of rows of tubes, wherein all of the upstream bank of louvers are angled in a first sloping direction and protrude from both the first and second sides; a first plurality of stiffening breaks disposed in the upstream bank of louvers, wherein the first plurality of stiffening breaks comprises a first plurality of converging stiffening breaks followed by a first plurality of diverging stiffening breaks, wherein all of the first plurality of stiffening breaks are disposed on both the first side and the second side of the fin; a downstream bank of louvers adjacent the upstream bank of louvers, wherein the downstream bank of louvers is configured to direct fluid only from the second side of the fin to the first side of the fin as the fluid passes along the fin past at least a second row of the plurality of rows of tubes, wherein all of the downstream bank of louvers are angled in a second sloping direction and protrude from both the first and second sides, wherein the first and second sloping directions are opposite from one another; and a second plurality of stiffening breaks disposed in the downstream bank of louvers, wherein the second plurality of stiffening breaks comprises a second plurality of converging stiffening breaks followed by a second plurality of diverging stiffening breaks, wherein all of the first plurality of stiffening breaks are disposed on both the first side and the second side of the fin. 2 Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review1: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 33—42, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement and show possession of the invention. 2. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kase et al., (JP 03031693 A, Jun. 28, 1989; hereinafter “Kase”); in view of Kato et al., (US Patent 5,170,842, issued Dec. 15, 1992; hereinafter “Kato”); Obosu (US 5,752,567, issued May 19, 1998); Lu, (US 4,550,776, issued Nov. 5, 1985); andlto etal., (JP 55-118596 Mar. 5, 1979; hereinafter “Ito”). 1 The Answer at page 2 lists the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 33, 34, 37, and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kase et al. (JP 03031693 A), Kato et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5, 170,842) and Obosu (U.S. Patent No. 5,752,567). This listing of the rejection is taken to be an error as the rejection was not listed in the Final Rejection mailed April 18, 2014. Also, the Answer was not signed by the Technology Director designating this rejection as an approved new grounds of rejection. Further, the Answer and Final Rejection both indicate that these same claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, indicating that no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is pending (Ans. 9, Final Rej. 4). Regardless, the affirmance of the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph made in this Decision would make this rejection moot. 3 Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph3 The Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide support in the Specification for the claim limitation that the plurality of “stiffening breaks are disposed on both the first and second side of the fin” (Ans. 7, 9, 10, Final Rej. 3). In contrast, the Appellants argue that this rejection of claim 1 is improper because the Specification provides support for the claim limitation at paras. 13—16 and Figs. 2—6 (App. Br. 12—16, Reply Br. 2). The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the stiffening breaks are disposed on both the first and second sides of the fin in light of paras. 13—16 and Figs. 1—4 of the Specification (App. Br. 4). The Appellants also argue that para. 14 describes the banks on the first and second sides as a “mirror image” and that the banks of the first and second sides of the fin are “the same or nearly the same” providing the required 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 26, 2006 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Apr. 18, 2014 (“Final Rej.”); Appeal Brief filed Sept. 18, 2014 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 9, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 9, 2015. 4 Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 support. The Appellants provide additional arguments in the Appeal Brief at pages 12—16 and Reply Brief at page 2. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Specification makes a distinction between the embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 2, and the embodiment shown in Figures 3 and 4 (Spec, paras. 6—9). In paragraph 13 while it is stated that as illustrated, the louvers all extend above and below a fin, there is also described variations where they extend from only the top or only from the bottom (one side, emphasis added). Regardless, the louvers shown in Figure 2 do not include the “stiffening breaks” so there is no disclosure as to how these would be placed on those louvers themselves. Further, in paragraph 14 it is stated that the dimensions of the louver in a bank in Fig. 2 “is the same, or nearly the same” with the description of “nearly” leaving variations open to some degree. Here, there is no specific disclosure that the plurality of “stiffening breaks are disposed on both the first and second side of the fin”. While para. 18 of the Specification does disclose modifications may be made, the particular claimed limitation for “stiffening breaks [that] are disposed on both the first and second side of the fin” is not set forth using such descriptive means that fully set forth the claimed invention. For these above reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is therefore sustained as well. 5 Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 43 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest the stiffening breaks directly along first and second angled lines “to define a first plurality of X- shaped stiffening breaks spaced directly between pairs of adjacent first curved perimeters in the first plurality of louvers” (App. Br. 20, 21, Reply Br. 3, 4). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the claimed “X-shaped” stiffening breaks are shown by Lu at Figure 2, Ito at Fig. 2, and Kato at Fig. 1 (Ans. 11, 12). We agree with the Appellants. Here, Fu and Ito each at Figure 2 do not disclose “a first plurality of X-shaped stiffening breaks spaced directly between pairs of adjacent first curved perimeters in the first plurality of louvers.” While Kato at Figure 1 does disclose X-shaped stiffening breaks in general, here, the cited combination of Kase, Kato, Obosu, Fu, and Ito to meet the limitations of the claim lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to sustain the rejection without impermissible hindsight. For these reasons the rejection of claim 43 is not sustained. CONCFUSIONS OF FAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 33—42, and 44-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 6 Appeal 2015-004431 Application 11/340,115 We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kase, Kato, Obosu, Lu, and Ito. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 43 is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 33—42, and 44-46 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation