Ex Parte Arik et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 201812984488 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/984,488 01/04/2011 6147 7590 04/19/2018 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR MehmetArik 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 229231-1 2395 EXAMINER WU, JAMES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2018 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): haeckl@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com Lori.e.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEHMET ARIK, JAMES PETROSKI, and MUSTAFA GURSOY 1 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 Appellants claim a cooling system (i.e., for convectively cooling electronic devices such as microchips (Spec. i-f 13)) comprising a housing (70) comprising a top section (80), a bottom section (82) parallel to the top section, an aperture (98) forming an opening from inside the housing to ambient air outside the housing, and a membrane (72) within the housing parallel to the top and bottom sections, wherein the membrane, the top section, and the bottom section are configured to create parallel synthetic jets (92, 94, 96) that flow from inside the housing through the aperture to ambient air outside the housing when the membrane is actuated (independent claim 1, Fig. 4; see also independent claims 14, 18, and 24). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A cooling system, comprising: a housing comprising a top section and a bottom section parallel to the top section, and further comprising an aperture formed in the housing and defined by the top section and the bottom section, wherein the aperture forms an opening from the inside of the housing to the ambient air on the outside of the housing; a connector within the housing capable of communicating with an exterior power source; driver electronics within the housing; and a first membrane within the housing, wherein the first membrane is connected to the driver electronics, wherein the first membrane is arranged in parallel with the top section and the bottom section of the housing, and wherein the first membrane, the top section and the bottom section are configured to create parallel synthetic jets that flow from the inside of the housing through the aperture to the ambient air outside of the housing, when the first membrane is actuated. 2 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 Appellants present arguments specifically directed to the independent claims only (App. Br. 6-21 ). Therefore, the dependent claims under rejection will stand or fall with their parent independent claims, of which claim 1 is representative. The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 14, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of the independent claim limitation "wherein the aperture forms an opening from the inside of the housing to the ambient air on the outside of the housing."2 According to the Examiner, this claim language is indefinite because "aperture and opening are synonym[s], and it is unclear what it means by an opening forms an opening" (id.). We agree with Appellants' general proposition (App. Br. 7) that the above quoted claim language is not rendered indefinite merely because the claim terms "aperture" and "opening" are synonyms. In this regard, the Examiner improperly interprets this language as simply requiring that "an opening forms an opening" (Final Action 2). Rather, one with ordinary skill in this art would understand with reasonable clarity that the claim language requires the aperture to form an opening that extends "from the inside of the housing to the ambient air on the outside of the housing" (claim 1 ). 2 We observe that the Examiner rejects the independent claims but inconsistently does not likewise reject the claims depending therefrom. 3 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 We do not sustain, therefore, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 14, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 14, 18, and 24 as unpatentable over Grimm (US 2008/0009187 Al; Jan. 10, 2008) in view of Glezer (US 2006/0185822 Al; Aug. 24, 2006) and rejects remaining dependent claims 2-13, 15-17, 19-23, and 25-28 as unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with additional prior art (Final Action 3-17). 3 We sustain these § 103 rejections for the reasons given in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below. In rejecting representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Grimm discloses a cooling system comprising a parallel top section, bottom section, and membrane configured to create parallel synthetic jets (Final Action 3--4 (citing the embodiment of Figs. 41, 52-54)) but that Grimm does not teach wherein the housing defines a wall and wherein the aperture is formed through the wall to the ambient air on the outside of the housing [and wherein] the synthetic jets flow from the inside of the housing through the aperture to the ambient air outside of the housing 3 In a prior Decision not relevant to this appeal (i.e., the Decision mailed February 19, 2016 for Appeal 2014-004608 in Application 12/984,488 ("Dec.")), we sustained the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of an independent claim, broader than currently appealed claim 1, as anticipated by Grimm (Dec. 2--4). 4 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 (id. at 4 (underlining added)). 4 Concerning this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Glezer discloses a cooling system comprising a housing defining a wall having an aperture whereby a synthetic jet flows from inside the housing through the aperture to the ambient air outside of the housing (id. at 4--5 (citing Fig. 2)). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Grimm's embodiment of Figures 41 and 52-54 to have wherein the housing defines a wall and wherein the aperture is formed through the wall to the ambient air on the outside of the housing [and wherein] the synthetic jets flow from the inside of the housing through the aperture to the ambient air outside of the housing in Grimm, as taught by Glezer, in order to directly push[] synthetic jets out at a cheaper cost instead of using [Grimm's] more costly channels [511, 513, 515 of the Figures 41and52-54 embodiment] to guide the synthetic jets out to outside of the housing (id. at 5). Appellants argue that Grimm contains no teaching or suggestion of the claim 1 aperture (App. Br. 11-15) and that Glezer contains no teaching 4 As previously discussed, the Examiner considers the claim 1 limitation "wherein the aperture forms an opening from the inside of the housing to the ambient air on the outside of the housing" to be indefinite. Accordingly, for purposes of examination under § 103 and consistent with the above finding, the Examiner interprets this limitation to require "wherein the housing defines a wall and wherein the aperture is formed through the wall to the ambient air on the outside of the housing" (Final Action 2-3 (emphasis altered)). This interpretation does not meaningfully impact the issues raised by the § 103 rejection of claim 1, and Appellants do not argue otherwise (see generally App. Br.). 5 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 or suggestion of creating synthetic jets flowing parallel to one another through the aperture as claimed (id. at 16-17). As correctly explained by the Examiner, these arguments do not show non-obviousness because they attack the references individually rather than their combination (Ans. 8-9 (noting that Glezer rather than Grimm is relied on for teaching the claimed aperture) and 14 (noting that Grimm rather than Glezer is relied on for teaching the claimed parallel synthetic jets)). In support of this legal principle, we reiterate the Examiner's citation (id. at 8, 14) of In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). Appellants challenge the Examiner's above quoted reason for combining Grimm and Glezer by arguing that the proposed combination would change Grimm's principle of operation (App. Br. 18-19). Specifically, Appellants argue that Grimm's "channels enable the cooling system to direct the synthetic jets towards a target" (id. at 18) whereas "apertures would not direct the synthetic jets towards a target ... [and so] may provide less air flow to the target" whereby "removing the channels from [the cooling device of] Grimm, as taught by Glezer, would hinder the functionality of the cooling device such that it would no longer function as intended" (id. at 19). 6 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 Appellants' argument lacks persuasive merit. We agree with the Examiner that one with ordinary skill in this art would have understood that Grimm's cooling principle of operation would function as intended when using Glezer's aperture rather than Grimm's channels to provide cooling jets to a location near the aperture (Ans. 16). For example, the modified cooling device of Grimm would exhibit no apparent hindrance of cooling functionality when using an aperture to apply cooling jets to a microchip located immediately adjacent the aperture. In addition, we point out that Appellants' argument is undermined by the failure of the Appeal Brief to present any evidence supporting their contention that replacing Grimm's channels with Glezer's aperture "would hinder the functionality of the cooling device such that it would no longer function as intended" (App. Br. 19). 5 For the reasons given above and by the Examiner, Appellants fail to show reversible error in the § 103 rejections advanced in this appeal. 5 In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Grimm specifically teaches advantages of having channels "to (1) direct the synthetic jets to where they are needed and to (2) impart a desired angular orientation to them" (Reply Br. 9). This argument is new in that the above discussed argument in the Appeal Brief relates to apertures providing "less air flow" than channels (App. Br. 19). Further, Appellants cite for the first time paragraph 101 of Grimm as evidence in support of this new argument (Reply Br. 9). Appellants do not even attempt to show good cause for the belated presentation of this new argument and new evidence in their Reply Brief rather than a timely presentation in their Appeal Brief (see id.). Therefore, we will not consider this new argument and new evidence for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(1)(2) (2016). 7 Appeal2017-006018 Application 12/984,488 DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 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 ). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation