Ex Parte Arik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2018

13074700 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/074,700 03/29/2011
62204 7590 09/05/2018
GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION
GE LICENSING (62204)
901 MAIN A VENUE
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.
228629-1 (GEL8083.087) 1289
EXAMINER
SCHERMERHORN, JON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2018 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):
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHMET ARIK and YOGEN VISHW AS UTTURKAR
Appeal 2017-011668
Application 13/074,700
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mehmet Arik and Y ogen Vi sh was Utturkar (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description. 1
Claims 9 and 12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 10, 11, and 13-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Office Communication dated Aug. 16, 2017;
see also Final Office Action 4--12 (hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated Oct. 6,
2016).
Appeal 2017-011668
Application 13/074,700
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates generally to thermal management
systems, and more particularly to thermal management systems for use in
embedded environments." Spec. ,r 2; 2 Fig. 18.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A system for cooling a device comprising:
a heat sink comprising a substrate having a plurality of fins
arranged thereon;
a fan positioned to direct a stream of ambient fluid in a
first direction towards the heat sink; and
a first synthetic jet assembly comprising one of a multi-
orifice synthetic jet and a plurality of single orifice synthetic jets;
wherein the first synthetic jet assembly is configured to
direct ambient fluid in a second direction across the heat sink,
wherein the second direction is approximately perpendicular to
the first direction;
wherein a first portion of the stream of ambient fluid
directed by the fan flows across the heat sink and a second
portion of the stream of ambient fluid directed by the fan
bypasses the heat sink; and
wherein the second portion of the stream of ambient fluid
that bypasses the heat sink is directed back toward the heat sink
by the first synthetic jet assembly.
2 Specification (hereinafter "Spec.") ( filed Mar. 29, 2011 ).
2
Appeal 2017-011668
Application 13/074,700
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines that claims 1-8 and 21 "contain[] subject
matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor ... at
the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention."
Final Act. 3. The Examiner points out that "[ c ]laim 1 recites that the fan
directs a stream which has a first portion directed to flow across the heat
sink and a second portion that bypasses the heat sink and is then directed
back toward the heat sink by the first synthetic jet assembly." Id. The
Examiner determines that
[t]he specification only discloses that the synthetic jets can direct
cool ambient fluid that has bypassed the heat sink back towards
it, [but] the specification does not disclose that the fan produces
two streams and that the second bypasses the heat sink to then be
directed back toward the heat sink by the synthetic jet.
Id. at 3--4.
The Examiner explains that: (1) with respect to paragraph 53 of the
Specification, "[ o ]nly one stream from the fan has been disclosed, [and]
there is no disclosure of portions of the stream or the stream bypassing any
part of the heat sink" (Ans. 2-3), (2) "[ w ]hile the synthetic jets are described
as directing cool ambient fluid that has bypassed the heat sink 10 back
towards it, there is no disclosure of the bypassed air being from the fan" (id.
at 3); (3) "[t]he stream from the fan is described as 'ambient fluid' while the
synthetic jets are described as directing 'cool ambient fluid' which
differentiates the stream from the fan and the fluid directed by the synthetic
jet," (id.; citing Spec. ,r 54); and (4) "Fig[ure] 18 shows a fan of substantially
[the] same width as base 12 and a single flow arrow 152 traveling directly
toward the heat sink," but "[ n ]othing in Fig[ ure] 18 would indicate a portion
3
Appeal 2017-011668
Application 13/074,700
of the stream from the fan bypasses the heat sink, nor would it indicate that
synthetic jets redirect said stream back to the heat sink" (id. at 3--4). 3
Compliance with the written description requirement set forth in the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require that the claimed subject
matter be described identically in the Specification, but the disclosure as
originally filed must convey to those skilled in the art that applicant had
invented the subject matter later claimed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Relative to Figure 18, Appellants' Specification discloses that,
[i]n operation, fan 50 and synthetic jets 30a---d operate together
to cool heat sink 10. Fan 50 directs a stream of ambient fluid
across base 12 and array of fins 14 of heat sink 10 in direction
152 such that the ambient fluid ejected from fan 50 flows from
inlet side 21 of heat sink 10 toward outlet side 23. Synthetic jets
30a---d enhance heat transfer by directing cool ambient fluid that
has bypassed the heat sink 10 back towards it.
Spec. ,r 53 ( emphasis added).
The Examiner unreasonably determines that the "cool ambient fluid
that has bypassed the heat sink 1 O" is fluid only from the synthetic jets, and
excludes fluid from fan 50. Based upon the above-quoted passage from the
Specification, we agree with Appellants that
it is inherent from the description provided in Paragraph [0053]
and [Figure] 18 that a part of the stream of ambient fluid directed
by fan 50 flows across the base 12 and array of fins 14 of heat
sink 10 (i.e., a "first portion" of the stream of ambient fluid) and
that another part of the stream of ambient fluid directed by fan
3 Examiner's Answer (hereinafter "Ans.") (dated July 19, 2017).
4
Appeal 2017-011668
Application 13/074,700
50 bypasses the base 12 and array of fins 14 of heat sink 10 (i.e.,
a "second portion" of the stream of ambient fluid).
Appeal Br. 5. 4
We further agree with Appellants that
[ o ]ne skilled in the art would recognize that ambient fluid that
has bypassed the heat sink 10 must necessarily have been
directed/generated by an air flow source (i.e., the fan) - as
general ambient fluid/air in the environment ( other than ambient
fluid directed/generated by an air flow source) would not be
considered to have "bypassed the heat sink," contrary to the
Examiner's suggestion that "bypass fluid could simply be
ambient air around the heat sink that was not propelled through
the fan and across the heat sink."
Id. at 5---6 (citing Advisory Action dated Dec. 27, 2016).
As Appellants correctly point out,
[ w ]hile the Specification further describes that "[ s ]ynthetic jets
30a---d enhance cooling ofheat sink 10 by directing ambient fluid
toward heat sink 10 that is cooler than the fluid from fan 50,
which was been heated as it passes along the length of heat sink
IO," Specification, i"f[0054], this does not indicate that synthetic
jets 30a---d direct fluid toward heat sink 10 that is entirely isolated
from the ambient fluid directed by fan 50, as asserted by the
Examiner.
Reply Br. 4. 5
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-8 and 21 for lack of written description.
4 Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Mar. 6, 2017).
5 Reply Brief (hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed Sept. 19, 2017).
5
Appeal 2017-011668
Application 13/074,700
DECISION
Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-8 and 21.
REVERSED
6