Ex Parte Agostini

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

12768383 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
12/768,383 04/27/2010 Bruno Agostini ABBCH-197 5504
129925 7590 09/29/2017
ABB Inc EXAMINER
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
ARANT, HARRY E
Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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 BRUNO AGOSTINI
Appeal 2016-002634
Application 12/768,383
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ABB Research Ltd.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002634
Application 12/768,383
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a twisted tube thermosyphon. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. Thermosyphon heat exchanger, comprising:
a plurality of first conduit elements wherein at least one
first conduit element includes:
a heat absorbing portion extending in a first plane, and
a first fluid transfer portion extending in a second plane, wherein
the first plane and the second plane being twisted relative to each
other about an angle of a twisting axis; and
a plurality of second conduit elements, at least one second
conduit element having a heat releasing portion being fluidly
connected to the first fluid transfer portion of the at least one first
conduit element and to the heat absorbing portion via a second
fluid transfer portion of the at least one second conduit element
and/or a connection to a fluid return line, for fluid to flow in a
closed loop through said at least one first conduit element and
said at least one second conduit element wherein each second
conduit element is arranged to extend in a single plane.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Yesin
Bauer
Guntly
Staffa
Morita (“JP ’387”)
Kotani (“JP ’279”)
US 4,001,548 Jan. 4, 1977
US 4,998,580 Mar. 12, 1991
US 6,993,838 B1 Feb. 7, 2006
JP 59-018387 Jan. 30, 1984
JP 07-198279 A Aug. 1, 1995
EP 2031332 A1 Mar. 4, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-002634
Application 12/768,383
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yesin, JP ’279, Guntly, and optionally Staffa.
Claims 1—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yesin, JP ’279, Guntly, optionally Staffa, and and JP ’387
or Bauer.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Yesin’s heat exchanger teaches a majority of
the features of claim 1. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner further finds that JP
’279 teaches a “twisted configuration” of heat pipe and that it would be
obvious to twist the heat pipe tubes 110 of Yesin in view of JP ’279 “in
order [among other things] to advantageously present a larger area at the
lower portion of the heat pipe tubes 110 for the mounting of the hot
electronic components to be cooled.” Id. at 4—5.
Appellant argues that because “the evaporator channels 120 and the
condenser channels 130 Tof Yesin] are arranged within the same conduit 110
. . ., there can be no arrangement [of the combination] where the condenser
channels 130 extend in a single plane.” Appeal Br. 6. As the claim requires
“each second conduit element is arranged to extend in a single plane,” this
claimed feature is not present in the combination. Id. at 7.
The Examiner agrees that “Appellant’s interpretation is correct” that
both the condenser channels and the evaporator channels “would [] extend in
two planes twisted relative to one another.” Ans. 3. However, the Examiner
continues, “the claim language does not preclude” “the condenser channel
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-002634
Application 12/768,383
from being interpreted as extending in a single plane.” Id. at 3^4. The
Examiner illustrates this point by providing the below marked-up version of
JP ’279’s Figure 3. Id. at 4.
Marked-up version of JP ’279’s Figure 3 showing a twisted heat pipe.
Although the Examiner has added a box around JP ’279’s heat pipe
which the Examiner labels “single plane,” it is unclear how the heat pipe “is
arranged to extend in a single plane” as required by the claim. As
recognized by the Examiner, the condenser channels within the heat pipe
“extend in two planes twisted relative to one another.” Ans. 3. The claim’s
use of the term “single” in the phrase “each second conduit element is
arranged to extend in a single plane” excludes an interpretation of the claim
where the second conduit element extends in multiple planes as shown in the
above figure. To find otherwise would render the word “single”
meaningless. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—21 are reversed.
REVERSED
4