Ex Parte Arik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2018

12984488 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

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